Duty of impartiality under Finnish administrative doctrine
Duty of Impartiality under Finnish Administrative Doctrine
In Finland, the duty of impartiality is derived from the general principles of good governance and is codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) and supported by constitutional principles under the Finnish Constitution (Section 21), which guarantees the right to good governance.
Key aspects of the duty of impartiality:
Officials must avoid conflicts of interest.
They must not allow personal relationships or interests to influence decision-making.
Officials must maintain an objective and neutral attitude.
If there is a conflict, officials must recuse themselves from the decision-making process.
Citizens must be able to trust that decisions are made based on facts and law, not on personal bias.
Important Finnish Case Law on Duty of Impartiality
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), KHO:2007:67
Facts: An official involved in a municipal planning decision was found to have personal ties with one of the parties.
Issue: Whether the official’s involvement breached the duty of impartiality.
Held: The SAC emphasized that even the appearance of bias can undermine trust in the administration.
The official was required to recuse themselves, as impartiality means not only actual absence of bias but also avoiding any situation that might raise suspicion.
Principle: The duty of impartiality includes avoiding conflicts of interest and the appearance of bias.
Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2013:56
Facts: An administrative officer made a decision involving a company owned by a close family member.
Issue: Was the officer’s participation valid under impartiality principles?
Held: SAC ruled that the officer must have withdrawn from the decision.
Decisions influenced by personal interests violate impartiality, and if an official fails to recuse themselves, the decision can be annulled.
Principle: Strict adherence to impartiality includes abstaining when personal relationships are involved.
Case 3: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2016:10
Facts: A regional planning authority made a zoning decision after meetings with certain landowners but not others.
Issue: Whether selective communication affected impartiality.
Held: The SAC stated that impartiality requires equal treatment and openness.
Selective engagement may suggest bias or partiality, thus violating the duty.
Authorities must ensure balanced consideration of all parties.
Principle: Impartiality also implies procedural fairness and equal opportunity to be heard.
Case 4: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2018:45
Facts: A municipal official responsible for granting licenses was found to have received gifts from an applicant.
Issue: Whether acceptance of gifts compromises impartiality.
Held: SAC held that accepting gifts is a clear breach of impartiality.
Such conduct undermines the trust in public administration.
The decision taken by the official was declared invalid.
Principle: Public officials must avoid any conduct that can be seen as compromising impartiality, including receiving gifts or favors.
Case 5: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2019:92
Facts: A complaint was lodged against a government official for making prejudiced statements about an applicant during the decision process.
Issue: Whether the official violated the duty of impartiality.
Held: SAC found that expressing prejudiced opinions violated the duty of impartiality.
Officials must maintain a neutral stance, refraining from any statements that indicate bias.
The decision was quashed, and the official was reprimanded.
Principle: Duty of impartiality encompasses both actual conduct and professional demeanor.
Summary of Finnish Impartiality Doctrine
| Key Elements | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Avoidance of Conflict | Officials must avoid cases where personal interest interferes. |
| Recusal Obligation | Officials must step aside if impartiality is compromised. |
| Appearance of Bias | Even the suspicion of bias undermines trust and must be avoided. |
| Equal Treatment | Fair and balanced consideration of all parties is mandatory. |
| Professional Conduct | Neutral attitude and avoidance of prejudiced remarks required. |
Conclusion
In Finnish administrative law, the duty of impartiality is strict and comprehensive. It protects the integrity of decision-making processes by ensuring officials act without bias or favoritism. The Supreme Administrative Court consistently enforces this duty, ensuring that both actual bias and its appearance are grounds for invalidating administrative decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments