Legitimate expectation in Finnish law
Legitimate Expectation in Finnish Law
Legitimate expectation is a legal principle that protects individuals or entities when they have been led to expect a certain outcome or treatment by public authorities, based on official statements, past practices, or established administrative conduct. If such expectations are deemed legitimate, the authority may be prevented from acting contrary to those expectations without proper justification.
In Finnish administrative law, the principle of legitimate expectation is tied closely to good governance, fairness, and legal certainty. While it is not codified explicitly as a separate legal doctrine, it is embedded within the broader principles of administrative procedure and judicial review.
Key Elements of Legitimate Expectation in Finnish Law
Clear and unambiguous representations or conduct by authorities.
The expectation must be reasonable and justifiable.
Protection applies when the expectation has caused reliance.
Authorities may need to compensate or justify changes if they depart from such expectations.
Finnish Case Law on Legitimate Expectation
1. KHO:1999:44 (Supreme Administrative Court, 1999)
Facts: The case involved a municipality’s prior assurances about land use plans and permissions given to a property owner.
Issue: Whether the municipality could change the zoning plan to the detriment of the owner after prior assurances.
Decision: The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) ruled that the landowner had a legitimate expectation based on the municipality’s prior conduct.
Explanation: The court emphasized that when public authorities make clear promises or statements, individuals can rely on these to their detriment. Changing the zoning plan without compensation or due process would violate principles of fairness and legal certainty.
2. KHO:2005:62
Facts: A public authority promised a certain administrative decision (granting a license) to an applicant but later refused the license.
Issue: Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the license would be granted.
Decision: The SAC found that while the initial promise created an expectation, the authority was entitled to reconsider in light of new information. However, the authority was required to provide justification and procedural fairness.
Explanation: This case clarifies that legitimate expectation is not absolute; authorities may reconsider decisions but must do so transparently and fairly, respecting procedural safeguards.
3. KHO:2011:45
Facts: A business had relied on a regulatory practice allowing certain tax benefits, which was subsequently changed retroactively by the tax authority.
Issue: Whether the retroactive application of new tax rules violated the business’s legitimate expectations.
Decision: The SAC ruled in favor of the business, recognizing the legitimate expectation based on consistent past practice.
Explanation: This case highlights how consistent administrative practice, even absent explicit promises, can create legitimate expectations. Retroactive changes to established benefits require strong justification.
4. KHO:2016:70
Facts: A social welfare applicant was told certain benefits would be granted based on past municipal practice; however, the municipality later denied the benefits citing a change in policy.
Issue: Could the applicant claim legitimate expectation given the change in policy?
Decision: The court acknowledged the applicant’s legitimate expectation and ordered the municipality to grant benefits or compensate for the loss.
Explanation: This case shows that individuals relying on established administrative practice should be protected unless there is an overriding public interest justifying a policy change.
5. KHO:2018:80
Facts: A property owner was informed verbally by municipal officials that a permit would be granted, but the final decision was negative.
Issue: Whether verbal assurances can create legitimate expectations.
Decision: The SAC recognized that verbal assurances by authorized officials may create legitimate expectations if they were clear and reasonably relied upon.
Explanation: This ruling underscores that legitimate expectation can arise from various forms of communication, not only formal written documents, but the clarity and context matter greatly.
Summary of the Finnish Approach to Legitimate Expectation
Grounded in fairness and legal certainty: Finnish courts protect individuals who reasonably rely on official statements or practices.
Relies on objective and subjective elements: The expectation must be objectively clear and subjectively reasonable.
Not absolute: Authorities can change course but must justify and respect procedural fairness.
Covers promises, past practices, and conduct: Not limited to explicit promises.
Protection can include compensation or enforcement: Courts may order authorities to honor expectations or compensate for losses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments