Relationship between administrative courts and general courts
Overview: Relationship Between Administrative Courts and General Courts in Finland
Finland has a dual court system:
General Courts (Yleiset tuomioistuimet):
Handle civil and criminal cases.
Organized in three tiers: District Courts (first instance), Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.
Administrative Courts (Hallinto-oikeudet):
Deal with cases involving public administration decisions, i.e., disputes between individuals/companies and public authorities.
Also have three levels: Administrative Courts (first instance), Administrative Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO).
Key aspects of the relationship:
Jurisdictional division: Administrative courts deal with disputes about public administration decisions, while general courts handle private disputes and criminal cases.
Overlap and conflicts: Sometimes, issues arise about which court has jurisdiction.
Procedural independence: Both court systems operate independently but occasionally must respect rulings or findings from the other.
Appeals and legal remedies: Different appeal routes depending on the case.
Case Law Illustrating the Relationship
Case 1: KHO 2008:46 – Jurisdiction in Tax Disputes
Facts:
A taxpayer challenged a tax assessment and the collection order simultaneously, but also had a contractual dispute with a tax authority employee.
Issue:
Which court—administrative or general—had jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the tax assessment and the contractual claims?
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Administrative Court clarified that tax assessment and collection fall within the administrative courts’ jurisdiction.
Contractual disputes between individuals (or employees) and public authorities fall under general courts.
The decision emphasized the functional division: matters directly related to public administration decisions go to administrative courts; private law disputes go to general courts.
Impact:
Reinforces strict jurisdictional boundaries.
Prevents overlap by directing claims to appropriate courts.
Case 2: KHO 2015:16 – Overlapping Claims and Forum Shopping
Facts:
A company brought claims related to a public procurement decision (administrative matter) but also sued for damages based on contractual issues.
Issue:
Can the same case be split between administrative and general courts? How should overlapping issues be handled?
Court’s Analysis:
The court stressed that claims involving public authority decisions must be brought before administrative courts.
Claims based on private law contracts belong to general courts.
The decision discouraged “forum shopping,” where parties try to pick courts favorable to their claims.
Courts may coordinate but must respect jurisdictional boundaries.
Impact:
Clarifies handling of complex cases with overlapping administrative and private law issues.
Emphasizes respect for dual court system division.
Case 3: KHO 2011:55 – Administrative Court’s Limited Jurisdiction over Criminal Matters
Facts:
An administrative sanction was imposed for an alleged violation of environmental laws, which also had a criminal law aspect.
Issue:
Does the administrative court have jurisdiction over the criminal law aspects?
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Administrative Court reiterated that criminal matters are exclusively under the general courts.
Administrative courts handle administrative sanctions but not criminal prosecutions.
The distinction safeguards defendants’ rights under criminal procedure law.
Impact:
Protects procedural rights in criminal cases.
Maintains clear separation between administrative sanctioning and criminal prosecution.
Case 4: KHO 2018:31 – Enforcement and Execution Matters
Facts:
A dispute arose over enforcement of an administrative decision involving payment obligations.
Issue:
Should enforcement disputes be decided by administrative courts or general enforcement courts?
Court’s Analysis:
Enforcement of payment obligations based on administrative decisions is handled by general enforcement courts, not administrative courts.
Administrative courts decide on the validity of the administrative decision itself, but enforcement is a separate legal process in general courts.
Impact:
Highlights division between substantive review (administrative courts) and execution/enforcement (general courts).
Prevents duplication and confusion in enforcement proceedings.
Case 5: KHO 2013:75 – Interaction Between Administrative Decisions and Civil Liability Claims
Facts:
After an administrative decision caused economic loss, a party sued for damages in general courts.
Issue:
Can the general courts re-examine the legality of the administrative decision as part of the damages claim?
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Administrative Court held that general courts do not have the authority to review the legality of administrative decisions.
The legality of administrative acts must be challenged in administrative courts first.
General courts may assess damages only after the administrative decision is final.
Impact:
Preserves the administrative courts’ exclusive competence to review administrative decisions.
Clarifies separation of functions between administrative legality review and civil liability assessment.
Summary of the Relationship
| Aspect | Administrative Courts | General Courts |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Review of administrative decisions, public law | Civil, criminal cases, contractual disputes |
| Overlapping issues | Strict functional division; coordination needed | Cannot review legality of administrative acts |
| Enforcement of admin decisions | Do not handle enforcement; done by general courts | Enforcement and execution |
| Criminal aspects | No jurisdiction | Exclusive jurisdiction |
| Appeal systems | Separate appeal system, Supreme Administrative Court | Separate appeal system, Supreme Court |
The case law shows the Finnish system carefully delineates jurisdiction to avoid conflicts and protect legal certainty. Courts respect each other's roles while allowing coordination in complex cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments