Principle of service-mindedness in Finnish administration
service‑principle (or service‑mindedness) in Finnish administrative law, including what it means in legislation, how it has been interpreted by the courts, and several cases or decisions that illustrate it. Because Finnish courts don’t always use the English term “service‑mindedness”, I draw on related Finnish principles such as the “service principle” under the Administrative Procedure Act, the duty to treat persons appropriately, to ensure clear communication, speed, good administration etc. Some of the cases are not exclusively about service‑mindedness but show how courts enforce it in practice.
What is the Service Principle (Service‑Mindedness) in Finland
Finnish law (in particular the Administrative Procedure Act (Hallintolaki 434/2003)) includes a service principle which requires public authorities to organise their services so that clients (citizens or other persons) receive appropriate service and that authorities themselves can perform their tasks efficiently. The idea is that administration should be accessible, understandable, helpful, without unnecessary delays, and respectful.
Under Section 7 of the Finnish Administrative Procedure Act there is a duty that: public authorities should arrange their administrative services so that those who receive them receive them appropriately, and the authority can perform its tasks effectively.
Also, broader principles of “good administration” (hyvän hallinnon takeet) include obligations of clarity, fairness, impartiality, respect for rights, the right to be heard, timeliness etc. (for example legislation also demands that decisions in administrative matters be handled without undue delay).
The Constitution of Finland stipulates in effect that everyone has the right to good administration: to have administrative proceedings handled appropriately, to receive legal protection, etc.
So “service‑mindedness” or “service principle” means a combination of: accessibility; clarity; helpfulness; fairness; speed; efficiency; respectful treatment; communication; understandable language; etc.
Case Law / Decisions Illustrating the Service Principle
Below are several decisions / precedents or administrative oversight decisions that illustrate how Finnish courts or oversight bodies enforce or apply the principle of service or good administration / service mindedness. Some are full Supreme Administrative Court judgments; others are summaries or oversight decisions from e.g. the Chancellor of Justice or Deputy Chancellor of Justice.
Case 1: Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2019:98 (Decision No. 3712; about competition / consumer law)
Facts: Several coach companies, a bus and coach association, and Matkahuolto were accused of anti‑competitive behavior (cartel) in the regular bus transport market, parcel delivery, etc. The Competition and Consumer Authority proposed very large fines, the Market Court imposed some amounts, then case was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
How service / good administration principle comes in: The Court’s decision makes reference to principles of fair administration, equal treatment, and rights of defence. Although the case is essentially about competition law, part of the judicial oversight was checking whether the administrative authority (Competition Authority) and Market Court had observed procedural fairness -- i.e. making sure the parties had been treated properly, had opportunity to present their case, etc.
Key holdings relevant to service principle: The Supreme Administrative Court increased fines in some instances, and evaluated whether penalties were appropriate considering duration, gravity, degree, etc. The Court paid attention to whether the legal procedures (notifications, opportunity to respond) had been adequate. Although not explicitly “service‑principle” in simple service delivery, this case underscores that administrative authorities must treat regulated entities fairly, provide proper procedure, ensure clarity of decision‑making etc.
Implications: For persons dealing with administration (whether in regulatory, licensing, enforcement settings), they can expect procedural fairness, clarity, equal treatment. Even when dealing with powerful regulatory authorities, the service / good administration principle implies that those authorities must act in a way that is understandable, communicative, not arbitrary.
Case 2: Automated Decision‑Making and Undue Delay / Right to be Heard (from administrative due process scholarship; specific decisions)
Facts: A matter was raised concerning automated decision‑making (ADM) used by public administration (for example in tax or social benefit decisions). In one instance, an erroneous automated decision was made and later corrected, but the authority gave no explanation, nor explained what had gone wrong; information to the citizen was poor; also issues of timeliness and transparency.
How service principle appears: The case underscores that the service principle requires not just speed, but also transparency, clarity, the ability of affected persons to understand decisions, the duty to use understandable language, to provide reasons, to allow hearing, to correct errors. This is part of “good administration” and “service mindedness”.
Decision / outcome: The authority was criticized by oversight bodies for failing to meet those service standards, including the requirement in law that cases be handled without undue delay, and that persons be given appropriate information.
Implications: Digitalization and automated tools do not relieve authorities of the service duty; in fact they may increase the demands for clear communication, good user interface, correction of mistakes, etc.
Case 3: OKV/1611/2018 (Deputy Chancellor of Justice decision about unemployment services portal)
Facts: A revamp of the unemployment offices’ web portal was made; complaints arose because it was poorly usable especially from mobile devices; navigation or access to services was difficult; some users could not easily find or engage with administrative services because of design, lack of adaptation.
How service principle appears: The Deputy Chancellor of Justice held that under the service principle and good administration duty, authorities must arrange their services (including digital services) so that citizens receive them appropriately — meaning usable, accessible, flexible, not unnecessarily burdensome.
Outcome: The authority was found to have failed in that requirement; had to improve usability, ensure access, etc.
Implications: Service‑mindedness is not just about formal decision‑making, but also about how the administrative apparatus interacts with citizens in all modes (web, phone, in person). Digital services must be designed in a citizen‑friendly way; user’s perspective must be taken into account.
Case 4: Supreme Administrative Court: Classification of food couriers (2025)
Facts: There was a case where food delivery workers were being classified as self‑employed but were actually operating under direction of a platform; the issue was whether they should be considered employees.
How service principle connects: Although this case is primarily about employment law, the service principle relates in that one part of what public authorities must do is to interpret laws and apply them fairly and clearly, ensuring that persons affected are treated appropriately (not unfairly disadvantaged by misclassification), so citizens have clarity and fair treatment. Also, part of service is that authorities do not allow practices that mislead or harm persons relying on legal classification, but ensure legal definitions are applied in a way that honors substantive rights.
Outcome: The Supreme Administrative Court held that the food couriers are employees, giving them the rights of employees.
Implications: This demonstrates that administrative law will enforce fair and clear application of statutes, not allow bureaucratic or contractual labels to deny persons the protections the law intends; service includes ensuring effectiveness and fairness of regulatory enforcement/community protection.
Case 5: First GDPR fines cases – KHO:2023:81 etc.
Facts: The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman imposed fines on entities (e.g. Posti Oy) for failing to meet obligations under the GDPR, particularly for transparency — failing to provide information to data subjects in a manner required by law when changing address service etc. Then the decision was challenged; issues concerned whether the fine and enforcement adhered to good administrative practice (clear communication, information, proper service to data subjects).
How service principle appears: One of the major complaints was that the data subject (citizen) must be informed clearly, actively; authorities must ensure transparency, clarity. The service principle demands that citizens are given required information in understandable form.
Decision / outcome: The Supreme Administrative Court upheld some of the fines. It emphasized that data protection information must be actively provided.
Implications: Establishes that service principle extends into data protection: public administrations must proactively ensure that citizens are informed of data processing, their rights; cannot hide behind technicalities etc.
Case 6: Immigration / Asylum Case: KHO:2018:52 (X v Finnish Immigration Service)
Facts: An asylum seeker’s application was rejected; key issue was whether correct procedures had been followed, whether the applicant had adequate opportunity to be heard, whether the service and information obligations of the Immigration Service had been fulfilled.
How service principle appears: The decision reflects not just mere formal correctness, but the qualitative dimension of how services to persons in vulnerable positions must be undertaken — clarity, fair hearing, reasoned decisions, timely communication.
Outcome: The Supreme Administrative Court looked at whether the asylum procedure complied with constitutional rights, international law obligations, including ensuring applicant was given the chance to present arguments, that language issues were handled, etc.
Implications: Demonstrates that in cases involving immigration, asylum etc., service principle becomes especially important — authorities must be especially careful in ensuring fairness, clarity, help, accessible language, etc.
Synthesis: What Courts Emphasize Under the Service Principle
From these cases and decisions, one can extract the following recurring themes in how Finnish administrative law treats service‑mindedness:
Timeliness / No Undue Delay: Authorities must handle administrative matters without undue delay. Delays reduce trust, may harm citizens.
Clarity / Understandable Communication: Authorities must communicate decisions, requests, notices etc in language that is clear, understandable. No unnecessary legalistic complexity.
Fair Treatment / Impartiality / Equality: Persons must be treated equally, fairly; procedural fairness; right to be heard.
Accessibility / Usability: Especially in the digital age, services must be accessible; web portals etc must be designed to be usable; no unnecessary barriers.
Transparency / Information: Providing adequate information about rights, duties, decision making, legal classification; ensuring persons know what is going on; giving reasons for decisions, etc.
Efficiency / Effectiveness: The administration must not just be formal but also functional; resources should be arranged so that services are delivered properly; avoid unnecessary obstacles for citizens.
RELATED Blog
0 comments