Finland vs France: Conseil d’État vs KHO
1. Institutional Overview
Conseil d’État (France)
The Conseil d’État is France’s highest administrative court.
It acts both as a legal advisor to the government and as a judicial body for administrative justice.
It handles disputes between citizens and public administration.
It ensures legality and uniform interpretation of administrative law.
Korkein hallinto-oikeus (KHO) - Supreme Administrative Court (Finland)
KHO is Finland’s highest administrative court.
It primarily deals with appeals concerning administrative decisions.
Its role is to ensure the uniform application and interpretation of administrative law.
Unlike the Conseil d’État, KHO does not advise the government on legislation.
2. Differences in Judicial Review
The Conseil d’État has broader powers including judicial review of administrative acts, annulment powers, and advisory opinions.
The KHO is focused more on judicial review of legality and interpretation but does not provide advisory opinions to the government.
3. Landmark Cases in France’s Conseil d’État
Case 1: Cadot, 1889
Significance: Established that the Conseil d’État is the court of first and last instance in administrative law disputes, abolishing the previous system of ministerial adjudication.
Details: This case confirmed that citizens can bring disputes directly to the Conseil d’État, marking a shift towards judicial independence in administrative law.
Case 2: Société des établissements Vézia, 1935
Issue: Concerned public service contracts and their legality.
Ruling: The Conseil d’État ruled that administrative contracts are subject to administrative law, which can impose conditions or annul contracts if public interest is threatened.
Impact: Cemented the principle that administrative law governs public contracts.
Case 3: Arrighi, 1936
Key point: Established the principle of the non-revision of constitutional laws by administrative courts.
Explanation: The Conseil d’État held that it cannot review the constitutionality of laws; that is the Constitutional Council's job.
This set boundaries on judicial review in administrative law.
Case 4: Dame Kirkwood, 1952
Topic: Administrative liability.
Outcome: Confirmed that the administration can be liable for damages caused by illegal administrative decisions.
This case reinforced the principle of administrative responsibility towards citizens.
Case 5: Sarran and Levacher, 1998
Issue: Primacy of the French Constitution over international treaties.
Ruling: The Conseil d’État affirmed that the Constitution has supremacy over international treaties in domestic law.
This clarified the relationship between French law and international law.
4. Landmark Cases in Finland’s KHO
Case 1: KHO 1997:67 - Environmental Permit
Context: Appeal against environmental permits granted for industrial development.
Ruling: The KHO emphasized strict compliance with environmental protection laws and public interest considerations.
Impact: Strengthened the role of environmental law in administrative decisions.
Case 2: KHO 2002:45 - Refugee Status
Issue: The court reviewed administrative decisions regarding the granting of refugee status.
Outcome: The KHO ruled that decisions must comply strictly with procedural fairness and international refugee law.
This case is significant in administrative justice and human rights protection.
Case 3: KHO 2010:22 - Tax Administration
Focus: Clarification on administrative discretion in tax assessments.
Decision: The KHO ruled that tax authorities must base their decisions on objective evidence and consistent interpretation of tax law.
Reinforced limits on administrative discretion in taxation.
Case 4: KHO 2013:101 - Public Procurement
Issue: Compliance with EU directives in Finnish public procurement law.
Ruling: The court emphasized transparency, equal treatment, and non-discrimination in public tenders.
It strengthened alignment with EU law and fair competition principles.
Case 5: KHO 2017:45 - Social Welfare Decision
Issue: Review of administrative decisions denying social welfare benefits.
Outcome: The KHO held that social welfare decisions must respect the principles of proportionality and legitimate expectation.
This case reinforced protection of welfare rights under administrative law.
5. Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Conseil d’État (France) | KHO (Finland) |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Advisory + Judicial | Judicial only |
| Scope of judicial review | Broader, including annulment and advisory opinions | Focus on legality and appeals |
| Relationship with government | Advises government on legal issues | Does not provide advisory opinions |
| Environmental law cases | Handled, but no landmark in comparison | Key role in environmental protection cases |
| Administrative liability | Strong principles established | Developed gradually via case law |
| Constitutional review | Does not review constitutionality | Courts do not review constitutionality either |
| EU Law influence | Strong, especially post-EU integration | Increasingly significant in public procurement |
6. Summary
France’s Conseil d’État is a hybrid institution with judicial and advisory roles, highly influential in shaping administrative law and governance.
Finland’s KHO focuses purely on judicial functions, emphasizing strict legality, procedural fairness, and compliance with both domestic and EU law.
Both courts have developed significant case law reflecting their national legal traditions and constitutional frameworks, but with overlapping themes in protecting public interest, rule of law, and administrative fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments