Finland vs South Africa: constitutionalisation of administration
Constitutionalisation of Administration: Concept Overview
Constitutionalisation of administration refers to the process where public administration and administrative law are grounded in constitutional principles. This ensures that administrative actions comply with constitutional rights, rule of law, separation of powers, and principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Finland: Constitutionalisation of Administration
Finland’s constitutional framework is rooted in the Constitution of Finland (1999), which consolidates fundamental rights and principles applicable to administrative actions. The constitution guarantees administrative justice, transparency, and the right to be heard.
Key Features:
Public administration must follow legality, proportionality, and transparency.
Fundamental rights such as equality before the law, right to a fair trial, and access to information are constitutionally protected.
Finnish administrative law is heavily influenced by the principle of legality — all administrative actions must be based on law.
The Supreme Administrative Court plays a key role in safeguarding constitutional principles in administrative matters.
Important Cases from Finland:
1. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO 2006:4
Facts: This case dealt with the administrative decision-making process concerning environmental permits.
Holding: The Court emphasized the principle of legality and proportionality in administrative actions, especially in environmental governance. It held that administrative authorities must act within the limits prescribed by law and must balance public interest with individual rights.
Significance: Demonstrates constitutional control over administrative discretion and highlights the duty to ensure environmental protection as a constitutional value.
2. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO 2015:68
Facts: The case involved access to information held by a public authority.
Holding: The Court reinforced the constitutional right to transparency and access to public documents under Finland’s Constitution and the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.
Significance: It affirms constitutionalisation by protecting the right of citizens to hold the administration accountable through transparency.
3. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO 1998:94
Facts: This concerned an administrative decision denying social benefits.
Holding: The Court stressed the need for fair procedure and the right to be heard before an administrative decision affecting individual rights is made.
Significance: Illustrates the constitutionalisation of procedural fairness in administration.
4. Supreme Administrative Court, KHO 2001:109
Facts: Dispute over zoning laws and administrative decisions impacting property rights.
Holding: The Court held that administrative decisions affecting property must comply with the principle of proportionality, balancing individual rights with public interests.
Significance: Shows constitutional protection of property rights within administrative processes.
South Africa: Constitutionalisation of Administration
South Africa’s constitutionalisation of administration is deeply embedded in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996—particularly Chapter 2 (Bill of Rights) and Chapter 3 (Cooperative Government). Section 33 of the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
Key Features:
The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) 2000 gives effect to the constitutional right to administrative justice.
Courts play a critical role in reviewing administrative actions for constitutionality.
The Constitution incorporates principles like accountability, legality, reasonableness, and procedural fairness into administrative law.
Important Cases from South Africa:
1. Affordable Medicines Trust v Minister of Health (2006)
Facts: The case challenged government administrative decisions on drug pricing.
Holding: The Constitutional Court ruled that administrative action must be rational and lawful and that decisions affecting rights must be reasonable and justifiable.
Significance: Cemented the standard of reasonableness in administrative decisions as a constitutional requirement.
2. Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2004)
Facts: Concerned the allocation of fishing quotas by an administrative authority.
Holding: The Court held that reasonableness is central to reviewing administrative decisions and that courts should respect the expertise of administrative bodies but must ensure legality and fairness.
Significance: Clarified how constitutional principles guide judicial review of administrative actions.
3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa (2000)
Facts: The President’s decision to publish regulations without public consultation was challenged.
Holding: The Court held that administrative action must comply with procedural fairness, including public participation when required.
Significance: Reinforced procedural fairness as a constitutional requirement.
4. President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) (1999)
Facts: The government attempted to intervene in rugby administration.
Holding: The Court emphasized the importance of the rule of law and legality in administrative actions and held that administrative power is subject to constitutional control.
Significance: Emphasizes separation of powers and legality in administrative governance.
5. Mistry v Interim Medical and Dental Council of South Africa (1998)
Facts: Concerned disciplinary action by a regulatory body.
Holding: The Court held that administrative actions must be procedurally fair and comply with constitutional standards.
Significance: Demonstrates the constitutionalisation of fairness in administrative disciplinary procedures.
Comparative Summary
| Aspect | Finland | South Africa |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Basis | Constitution of Finland (1999) | Constitution of South Africa (1996) |
| Key Administrative Principles | Legality, proportionality, transparency | Lawfulness, reasonableness, fairness |
| Judicial Oversight | Supreme Administrative Court | Constitutional Court & High Courts |
| Procedural Fairness | Strong emphasis | Explicit constitutional right (Section 33) |
| Transparency & Access | Right to access information protected | Transparency embedded, with PAJA |
| Reasonableness Review | Implied through proportionality | Explicit constitutional standard |
Final Thoughts:
Both Finland and South Africa have embedded constitutional principles deeply into their administrative law.
Finland focuses heavily on legality, proportionality, and transparency, rooted in a civil law tradition.
South Africa explicitly constitutionalises administrative justice with a strong rights-based approach, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and public participation.
Case law from both countries illustrates how courts safeguard constitutional principles against arbitrary or unlawful administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments