Ethical standards in Finnish administration
🧭 1. Overview of Ethical Standards in Finnish Public Administration
Key Principles:
Legality: All administrative actions must be based on law.
Impartiality: Officials must act objectively and fairly, avoiding bias.
Equality: Everyone must be treated equally under the law.
Proportionality: Administrative measures must be proportionate to the aim.
Public trust: Officials must act in ways that maintain public confidence.
Main Legal Sources:
Constitution of Finland (Section 21): Ensures the right to good administration.
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003): Sets the rules for fair and ethical conduct.
Act on Public Officials (750/1994): Regulates civil servants' duties, including conflict of interest, loyalty, and accountability.
Criminal Code of Finland: Penalizes misconduct, bribery, abuse of office.
⚖️ 2. Case Law Examples Demonstrating Ethical Standards
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 2014:3 – Conflict of Interest in Land Use Planning
Background:
A municipal council member participated in a zoning decision that increased the value of land owned by their family.
Issue:
Was the council member disqualified due to a conflict of interest?
Court's Finding:
Yes. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the council member was disqualified under the Administrative Procedure Act due to a direct financial interest.
Importance:
Reinforced the ethical obligation to avoid participating in decisions where personal interest is involved.
Demonstrated the application of the principle of impartiality.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: KHO 2008:12 – Abuse of Discretion in Immigration Decision
Background:
An official in the Finnish Immigration Service denied an asylum application with reasoning that lacked factual basis and fairness.
Issue:
Did the official act unethically or unlawfully?
Court's Finding:
Yes. The Court emphasized that all administrative decisions must be based on facts, legal reasoning, and fairness. The official's conduct violated principles of due process and good governance.
Importance:
Reaffirmed the constitutional right to good administration (Section 21).
Highlighted the ethical duty to make fact-based and impartial decisions.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: KHO 2001:48 – Discretion in Granting Business Subsidies
Background:
A municipal official granted business subsidies to a company owned by a relative.
Issue:
Was there misconduct or unethical behavior?
Court’s Finding:
Yes. The official had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose the relationship. The Court invalidated the decision and criticized the lack of transparency.
Importance:
Underlined the duty of public officials to declare conflicts of interest.
Violating this undermines public trust in impartiality.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2017 – Misuse of Official Position in Procurement
Background:
A procurement officer manipulated a municipal tender process to favor a company they had connections with, in exchange for future employment.
Charges:
Abuse of public office
Breach of procurement rules
Corruption (passive bribery)
Court’s Finding:
Guilty. The court sentenced the official to probation and fines, stating that public procurement must be competitive, transparent, and free of undue influence.
Importance:
Reinforced rules around ethical conduct in procurement.
Illustrated criminal liability for breaching trust in public office.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: KHO 2012:20 – Failure to Justify Negative Administrative Decision
Background:
A municipal authority rejected a citizen's request for a permit without adequate reasoning or opportunity for the applicant to be heard.
Issue:
Was this ethically and legally acceptable?
Court’s Finding:
No. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the decision violated the duty to provide reasons and the applicant’s right to be heard (Administrative Procedure Act, Section 34).
Importance:
Strengthened the ethical standard that decisions must be justified and transparent.
Emphasized procedural fairness as a component of good administration.
🧾 Summary of Lessons from Case Law
| Principle | Case Example | Ethical Lesson |
|---|---|---|
| Impartiality | KHO 2014:3, KHO 2001:48 | Officials must not participate in decisions affecting their own or relatives’ interests. |
| Transparency | Helsinki CoA 2017 | Public processes must be open, especially in tenders or subsidies. |
| Right to be heard | KHO 2012:20 | Citizens must be allowed to present views before adverse decisions. |
| Fact-based decisions | KHO 2008:12 | Decisions must rely on accurate, complete information. |
| Accountability | All above cases | Misconduct leads to legal, professional, and reputational consequences. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments