Finland vs Germany administrative procedure models
🇫🇮 Finland vs. Germany 🇩🇪
I. 🔍 General Overview: Administrative Procedure Models
| Element | Finland | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| Legal System Type | Nordic legal tradition with strong civil law influence | Classical civil law (Romano-Germanic tradition) |
| Administrative Procedure Law | Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (434/2003) | Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG) – Administrative Procedure Act (1976) |
| Judicial Oversight | Administrative courts, KHO (Supreme Administrative Court) | Administrative court system, topped by BVerwG (Federal Administrative Court) |
| Legal Principles | Legality, proportionality, transparency, right to be heard | Rule of law, proportionality, legal certainty, fair hearing |
| Nature of Procedure | Often informal, trust-based governance | Formalized, codified administrative process |
| Ombudsman Role | Parliamentary Ombudsman has constitutional oversight powers | No national ombudsman; relies on courts and data protection officials |
II. 🧭 Key Doctrinal Differences
| Topic | Finland | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing the Party | Required, but may be more flexible | Strict procedural requirement under §28 VwVfG |
| Discretionary Decisions | Reviewed for proportionality and legality | Subject to strict standards of discretion misuse (Ermessensfehlerlehre) |
| Appeals | Broad access to administrative courts | Multi-stage appeal with prior objection procedure (Widerspruch) |
| Binding Administrative Guidelines | Common and influential | Binding internal directives not directly enforceable |
| Transparency Laws | Strong under Openness Act | Historically limited; now improving under IFG (Freedom of Information Act) |
III. ⚖️ Detailed Case Law – More Than Five Key Cases
✅ Case 1: Finland – KHO 2006:24
Topic: Discretionary Decision Review
Facts:
A municipal authority refused a permit using vague criteria without proper justification.
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) ruled that administrative discretion must be reasoned, proportional, and based on law.
Lack of reasoning made the decision unlawful.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finland’s emphasis on substantive review of discretionary acts and the requirement of justification.
✅ Case 2: Germany – BVerwG 1 C 19.01 (2003)
Topic: Misuse of Discretion (Ermessensfehlgebrauch)
Facts:
The immigration authority rejected a residence permit based on irrelevant considerations.
Decision:
The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) ruled the authority misused discretion.
According to German doctrine, discretion must be exercised within legal limits, considering all relevant facts.
Significance:
Highlights the German approach of applying Ermessensfehlerlehre (errors in discretion), including:
Ermessensnichtgebrauch – not using discretion at all
Ermessensüberschreitung – exceeding discretion
Ermessensfehlgebrauch – improper use
✅ Case 3: Finland – KHO 2014:61
Topic: Independence of Administrative Courts
Facts:
A public agency’s decision was appealed, and the appellant questioned the court’s independence.
Decision:
The KHO affirmed that administrative courts are structurally and functionally independent from executive agencies.
Reinforces separation of powers, essential to Finland’s model.
Significance:
Shows Finland’s trust-based system with judicial oversight even in semi-formal administrative procedures.
✅ Case 4: Germany – BVerfGE 49, 329 (Numerus Clausus Case, 1978)
Topic: Access to University – Procedural Rights
Facts:
Students were denied university access due to restricted quotas.
Decision:
The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the procedure violated the right to equal access to education (Art. 12 GG).
Administrative procedures must be transparent, fair, and subject to judicial control.
Significance:
Established the principle that substantive fundamental rights shape administrative procedures in Germany.
✅ Case 5: Finland – KHO 2010:78
Topic: Delay and Right to Be Heard
Facts:
A welfare application was significantly delayed without communication from the authority.
Decision:
The Court and the Parliamentary Ombudsman found the delay violated Section 21 of the Constitution.
Applicant had a right to expect prompt and fair treatment.
Significance:
Highlights Finland’s emphasis on good administration and timeliness as procedural rights.
✅ Case 6: Germany – BVerwG 6 C 1.04 (2006)
Topic: E-Government and Access to Files
Facts:
A citizen demanded digital access to their administrative file under the Freedom of Information Act (IFG).
Decision:
The Court ruled that authorities must facilitate access, and digital format may not be refused without justification.
Significance:
Reflects Germany’s evolving approach to transparency, increasingly resembling the Finnish openness model.
✅ Case 7: Finland – KHO 2017:12
Topic: Environmental Decisions and Public Participation
Facts:
Citizens were denied access to environmental assessment reports before a zoning decision.
Decision:
KHO held that early public participation and access to environmental documents is required under EU and Finnish law.
Significance:
Reflects Finland’s procedural emphasis on openness and participation, especially in environmental governance.
✅ Case 8: Germany – BVerwG 9 C 6.08 (2010)
Topic: Procedural Fairness in Urban Planning
Facts:
Property owners were excluded from a city planning consultation.
Decision:
The Court found procedural violation of participation rights under the BauGB (Building Code).
Planning decisions must involve consultation with affected parties.
Significance:
Shows Germany’s strict procedural protections in administrative planning procedures.
IV. 🔄 Comparative Analysis Table (Key Doctrines)
| Doctrine / Principle | Finland | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| Right to be heard | Required under APA, more flexible | Strict under §28 VwVfG |
| Discretionary decision review | Based on proportionality, legality | Reviewed under Ermessensfehlerlehre |
| Judicial oversight | Administrative courts (multi-tiered), KHO | Administrative court system, BVerwG |
| Openness and transparency | Very strong (Act on Openness of Government Activities) | Historically limited, now improved with IFG |
| Ombudsman role | Key institution for supervision | Lacks federal ombudsman role |
| Use of digital tools | Strong in e-government and digital ID | Advancing, but more cautious and formalistic |
| Public participation | Required in planning, environment, etc. | Required under BauGB, especially in zoning and infrastructure |
V. 📌 Conclusion: Finland vs. Germany – A Comparative Summary
| Aspect | Finland | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility | More informal, trust-based administrative interactions | Formalistic and procedure-heavy |
| Access to Information | Broad access rights; transparency is a principle | More restricted, though improving |
| Appeals System | Open, low threshold to courts | Structured multi-phase appeal (incl. Widerspruch) |
| Role of Courts | Judicial review ensures legality and reasonableness | Courts strictly enforce procedure and discretion doctrine |
| Public Values | Transparency, good governance, service orientation | Legal certainty, state neutrality, procedural rigor |
RELATED Blog
0 comments