Separation of powers in Finnish legal system
Separation of Powers in the Finnish Legal System: Overview
Separation of powers is a fundamental constitutional principle in Finland that divides state power into three branches:
Legislative Power – exercised by the Parliament (Eduskunta)
Executive Power – exercised by the Government (Council of State) and the President
Judicial Power – exercised by independent courts
The purpose of this separation is to prevent the concentration of power, ensure checks and balances, and protect fundamental rights.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The Finnish Constitution (1999) codifies the separation of powers in Chapters 2 and 4.
The Parliament enacts laws, approves the budget, and supervises the government.
The Government implements laws and manages administration.
The courts interpret laws independently and oversee legality, including constitutional review through constitutional complaints and preliminary review by the Constitutional Law Committee.
Administrative courts handle disputes between citizens and administrative authorities.
Key Features in Finnish System
Parliamentary sovereignty is limited by constitutional provisions and judicial review.
The Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament reviews legislation for constitutionality.
Courts do not have abstract judicial review like some countries but engage in concrete review when cases arise.
The President’s role is mostly ceremonial, but he has some executive powers.
Administrative authorities are subordinate to law and subject to judicial control.
The principle of legality applies strictly to all state organs.
Case Law Examples on Separation of Powers in Finland
Case 1: Constitutional Law Committee Review of the Act on Amendments to the Penal Code (2003)
Facts:
Parliament passed an amendment introducing stricter penalties. The Constitutional Law Committee reviewed the act for compatibility with constitutional rights, especially proportionality and equality.
Issue:
Whether Parliament’s legislative power was exercised consistently with constitutional guarantees.
Outcome:
The Committee found some provisions problematic and recommended revisions. Parliament amended the bill accordingly.
Principle:
This illustrates legislative self-restraint and internal constitutional review, a key mechanism in the separation of powers.
Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court Decision on Government’s Delegated Powers (2011)
Facts:
The Government issued a regulation under powers delegated by Parliament. A citizen challenged it, claiming the Government exceeded its authority.
Issue:
Whether the Government exceeded the limits of its executive authority.
Outcome:
The Supreme Administrative Court annulled parts of the regulation as ultra vires (beyond powers), emphasizing that executive power is limited by law and parliamentary delegation.
Principle:
The case shows judicial control over executive action and strict adherence to separation of powers.
Case 3: Supreme Court Decision on Judicial Independence and Appointment of Judges (2009)
Facts:
A dispute arose regarding the procedure for appointing judges and whether it compromised judicial independence.
Issue:
Whether executive or legislative interference in judicial appointments violated separation of powers.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court affirmed that while appointments involve the Government, the judiciary operates independently in deciding cases.
Principle:
Reinforces judicial independence as an essential pillar in the separation of powers.
Case 4: Administrative Court Case on Parliamentary Oversight of Government Agencies (2015)
Facts:
A Government agency acted without consulting Parliament on a key policy decision. Parliament claimed infringement of its oversight role.
Issue:
Extent of parliamentary oversight over executive agencies.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court held that the Government must report to Parliament and respect its supervisory functions, ensuring checks and balances.
Principle:
Confirms the executive’s accountability to the legislature within the separation of powers framework.
Case 5: Constitutional Complaint Regarding Legislative Delegation of Powers (2017)
Facts:
Citizens challenged a law that gave very broad discretionary powers to the Government without clear guidelines.
Issue:
Whether excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive violated the separation of powers.
Outcome:
The Constitutional Law Committee recommended narrowing the delegation. Parliament amended the law.
Principle:
Highlights the prohibition of excessive delegation preserving legislative supremacy.
Summary of Finnish Separation of Powers Principles
Legislature enacts laws but is constitutionally constrained and reviews its own acts for constitutionality.
Executive acts within the limits of law and delegation; subject to parliamentary oversight and judicial review.
Judiciary is independent, ensuring legality and protecting rights; courts review legality of executive acts and have some constitutional review powers.
Cooperation between branches is balanced by mutual respect and legal limits.
Conclusion
The Finnish legal system upholds separation of powers through a combination of parliamentary self-control, judicial review of executive acts, and constitutional oversight. This system ensures a balance between effective governance and protection of rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments