Finland vs Sweden administrative law comparison
Core Frameworks: Finland vs Sweden
Before cases, some structural comparisons:
| Feature | Finland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|
| Court structure for administrative law | Specialized Administrative Courts (Regional Administrative Courts → Supreme Administrative Court) handling most administrative decisions (licenses, immigration, planning etc.) | Administrative Courts (Förvaltningsdomstolar), with Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) for appeals in administrative matters. Similar separation of administrative justice from general courts. |
| Constitutional/protection of rights | Finnish Constitution (1999/2000) includes fundamental and human rights; principle of legality; administrative procedure statute; EU / ECHR norms; strong welfare‑state context | Swedish Constitution includes Instrument of Government etc.; strong tradition of administrative legal protection; ECHR, EU norms; procedural rights enshrined; also principles like proportionality, legality, access to courts etc. |
| Remedies & Rights of Appeal | Wide rights to appeal from administrative decisions; procedural guarantees; duty to hear; right to be informed; right to remedy; state liability in certain unlawful acts | Comparable procedural protections; Swedish administrative law also has strong norms of legal certainty, procedural fairness, access to remedy; perhaps somewhat more tradition of ombudsman role. |
| Deference / Discretion vs Strict Legal Control | Finnish courts exercise substantial judicial review; some deference in technical matters but strong oversight especially when fundamental rights implicated | Swedish courts also have deference in technical/complex domain, but legal review is robust; Swedish legal scholarship often emphasizes principle of legality, strong duty on public authorities. |
Key Cases and Decisions in Finland & Examples in Sweden (for Comparison)
Here are five Finnish administrative law cases, together with commentary about comparable Swedish practice or known decisions, to show how the two jurisdictions align or diverge.
Case 1: Finland – KHO:2018:52; X v Finnish Immigration Service (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland)
Facts:
An asylum‑seeker claimed fear of persecution based on sexual orientation. The Immigration Service rejected the application, and lower administrative court upheld that the applicant’s claims were not credible. On appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court examined evidence (photos / video) to assess credibility. EUR-Lex
Legal Issues:
Duty of the administrative authority and courts to thoroughly examine all relevant evidence, including that provided late in proceedings.
Procedural fairness / right to be heard.
Assessment of personal credibility and the standards applicable.
Decision / Outcome:
The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court held that authorities have duty under the Aliens Act and Administrative Judicial Procedure Act to investigate relevant evidence. The appellate court must consider new evidence if it is material and was not reasonably available earlier.
If such evidence comes up, fairness demands it be assessed, especially where claims involve vulnerability (sexual orientation).
Significance / Comparison with Sweden:
Comparable Swedish case law: Swedish courts (and migration authorities) similarly require careful assessment of asylum claims; Swedish administrative courts have considered arguments about credibility, late evidence etc., applying similar norms of procedural fairness. Sweden also follows EU law and ECHR practice in such cases.
One difference: Sweden tends to have more developed case law on asylum and gender/sexual orientation because of higher volume historically; procedural norms are well‑tested. Finland’s case shows Finnish law catching up in aligning with EU/Charter standards.
Case 2: Finland – KHO:2019:98; Market Court / Competition & Consumer Authority vs Bus Companies
Facts:
Several coach companies, and an association, had colluded to restrict competition (excluding certain services, blocking timetable access etc.). The Market Court imposed fines; appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court challenged whether fines were proportionate, whether each company’s conduct was individually assessed etc. EUR-Lex
Legal Issues:
Proportionality of administrative penalties.
Principle of equal treatment among entities.
Right to a fair hearing (e.g. oral hearings).
Application of EU law (competition law) in Finnish administrative law.
Decision / Outcome:
The Supreme Administrative Court found that the Market Court had not sufficiently considered individual factors (size of company, duration, gravity). It increased fines in some cases.
It affirmed that procedural rights (fair hearing, ability to present own circumstances) are required even in competition enforcement.
Significance / Comparison with Sweden:
Sweden’s competition authority similarly must follow procedural fairness; Swedish courts have struck down or reduced fines where authorities failed in individual assessment or in providing fair process.
Swedish administrative law also emphasizes proportionality and equal treatment; in that sense, both systems align closely, especially given EU competition law is common ground.
Case 3: Finland – Hehao case 12/0890/1, Helsinki Supreme Administrative Court, 21 September 2012
Facts:
An Iraqi asylum seeker whose application in Sweden had been rejected was to be returned to Sweden (under Dublin Regulation). The Finnish Immigration Service had ordered return. The applicant claimed risk of onward return from Sweden to Iraq, where they could face human rights violations. Asylum Law Database
Legal Issues:
Finland’s obligations under EU law (Dublin regulation).
Non‑refoulement principle / risk of inhuman treatment under ECHR.
Whether Finland may refuse to transfer someone to another EU state if that state does not provide adequate human rights protection.
Decision / Outcome:
The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court reversed the decision: Finland could not send the applicant back to Sweden if there was a real risk that Sweden would send them onward to Iraq, where they faced rights violations. Finland must instead examine the asylum application itself.
Significance / Comparison with Sweden:
Swedish courts and migration authorities have similar case law: cases where Sweden has been asked to accept transfers under Dublin, but applications are refused if risk of chain‑refoulement exists.
Also, Sweden has had ECHR judgments re: Sweden’s handling of asylum seekers and transfers, especially where risk in third countries is present. Finland’s case shows that Finnish courts are willing to require due diligence about the conditions in the “receiving” EU state.
Case 4: Finland – KHO:2021:125; Decision regarding GDPR & Åland Data Protection Authority head mandate
Facts:
The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision to terminate the mandate of head of the regional Åland Data Protection Authority. The termination had been done contrary to GDPR rules about the minimal term (at least four years) for Data Protection Authority members. GDPR Hub
Legal Issues:
Legal protection in administrative appointments / termination.
Supremacy of EU law (GDPR) in domestic administrative acts.
Principle of legality: administrative action must have legal basis; cannot violate EU law.
Decision / Outcome:
Domestic administrative decision was annulled because it violated GDPR (an EU regulation) which is directly applicable; the termination was not compatible with legal requirement.
Significance / Comparison with Sweden:
Sweden also integrates GDPR; Swedish administrative courts have similarly annulled domestic acts that violate EU law obligations (in data protection, supervisory bodies etc.).
Both jurisdictions show that even administrative acts concerning appointments / mandates must respect higher‑order legal norms like EU law and fundamental rights.
Case 5: Finland – “Delays in Civil Proceedings: Comparative Studies Between Finland and Sweden”
Although this is not a single court case, it's a comparative empirical study showing court delays and Article 6 ECHR violations. SpringerLink
Findings:
In Finland, there have been more violations of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial, including reasonable lengths of proceedings) due to delays in civil proceedings than in Sweden.
Even though procedural systems are similar, the actual delay durations, backlog issues, court culture, procedural reforms differ.
Sweden has had reforms (e.g. procedural modernisation) that have reduced delays.
Significance / Comparison:
Shows that in practice, even though administrative law frameworks are broadly similar, Finland faces greater problems with procedural delay, which can affect effective remedy and fairness.
Administrative law's promise of timeliness, hearings, remedy is impacted by practical constraints; Sweden seems to perform better in that respect.
Similarities and Differences: Key Comparative Insights
From the cases and practices, the following similarities and divergences emerge:
| Topic | Similarities | Differences / Finland‑Sweden Distinctions |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural fairness / duty to investigate evidence | Both countries uphold strong norms of hearing, allowing new evidence where justified, duty of authorities to investigate relevant claims especially in asylum, identity etc. | Finland’s courts seem more recently to be clarifying standards especially with respect to EU law and Charter (e.g. sexual orientation asylum cases). Sweden has longer history and wider precedent in some areas. |
| EU law / Charter / ECHR integration | Both integrate EU law into administrative decision‑making; both respect obligations (e.g. data protection, free movement, asylum law). | Finland had some lag in some administrative practices; some domestic laws or decisions have been overturned when found incompatible with EU law (e.g. GDPR mandate case). Sweden similarly, but perhaps more precedents. |
| Remedies and state liability | Both allow for administrative decisions to be challenged; remedies including annulment, appeals; potential liabilities under state tort law. | In practice, Finland has encountered more cases re: delays; Sweden seems to have somewhat less case volume in courts for some kinds of administrative remedy claims; also ombudsman role in Sweden is strong, and may affect remedial culture. |
| Judicial review vs deference | Courts in both have technical domain deference in some cases (e.g. competition, expert regulatory decisions). But both emphasize legality, proportionality. | Finnish courts are perhaps less deferential, especially where rights are at stake; scholarly literature notes that Finland gives less deference in judicial review compared to some other systems. Sweden may have somewhat greater tradition of administrative discretion in some regulatory zones, though not unbounded. |
| Practical procedural issues (delay, backlog, access to remedy) | Both systems have legal rights to remedy, etc. | Finland seems to suffer more from delays in civil proceedings (which touch administrative review too), whereas Sweden has implemented procedural reforms that reduce delays. |
Possible Swedish Case Examples (for comparison)
While I don’t have detailed Swedish full‑case texts here, I can note known kinds of Swedish administrative law decisions that practically align with those Finnish ones:
Swedish Migration Courts have several cases (e.g. asylum claims based on sexual orientation) where late evidence is accepted or rejected; credibility assessed; comparisons can be drawn to Finland’s X v Immigration Service case.
Swedish data protection decisions (e.g. supervisory authority decisions) where administrative acts (like decisions to terminate or appoint data protection functionaries) have been challenged in administrative courts based on GDPR.
Swedish competition law / market regulation cases where fines are reduced for procedural defects or lack of individual assessment.
Swedish cases where administrative delay has led to ECHR judgments under Article 6 for unreasonable length of proceedings.
Swedish ombudsman (Justitieombudsmannen) or Chancellor of Justice decisions where administrative authorities have been held to account for violations of citizens’ procedural rights, transparency etc.
Concluding Observations
Finland and Sweden share a common Nordic/European tradition of administrative law: strong procedural guarantees, commitment to legality, integration of EU/ECHR, access to courts, duty of fairness etc.
The differences tend to lie in practice: Finland has more reported issues with delays; Finland seems in the past decade to have more cases where EU law / Charter norms are being explicitly used to overturn domestic administrative decisions. Sweden often has more precedent, possibly because of larger number of cases historically in certain areas.
Also, administrative culture matters: Sweden seems to have more procedural modernisation in some civil/administrative proceedings, perhaps contributing to more efficient handling of cases. Finland is catching up (and has reforms etc).
RELATED Blog
0 comments