Smart cities and administrative law
🏙️ Smart Cities and Administrative Law in Finland
🔷 1. What Are Smart Cities?
Smart cities are urban areas that integrate digital technologies, data analytics, and automated systems to enhance public services, infrastructure, governance, and sustainability. They often involve:
IoT (Internet of Things)
Smart traffic and transport systems
Real-time surveillance and data collection
AI-based decision-making
E-governance platforms
While smart technologies improve efficiency, they raise legal questions under administrative law, particularly concerning:
Transparency and accountability
Privacy and data protection
Public participation and democratic legitimacy
Legal authority for automation and algorithms
Equality and non-discrimination in access to services
🔷 2. Administrative Law and Smart Cities – Key Legal Principles
Finnish Constitution (1999)
Section 21 – Right to good governance, fair process, and legal remedies
Section 10 – Right to privacy and data protection
Section 6 – Equality before the law
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003)
Governs all administrative decisions
Requires:
Legal basis
Hearing of parties (Section 34)
Reasoned decisions (Section 45)
Data Protection Act (1050/2018) and GDPR
Regulate smart data systems and AI
📚 Key Finnish Cases and Legal Precedents Involving Smart Cities
1. KHO:2018:90 – Smart Traffic Surveillance and Privacy
Facts:
The City of Helsinki deployed AI-enabled traffic cameras that used facial recognition to monitor traffic violations and analyze pedestrian behavior. Citizens filed complaints about privacy violations and lack of transparency.
Holding:
The Supreme Administrative Court held that real-time biometric data collection must comply with the Data Protection Act and require legal basis.
The City had no statutory authority for continuous facial recognition.
Ordered suspension of the system until a proper legislative framework was established.
Importance:
Established the limits of AI and surveillance under administrative law.
Emphasized proportionality and legality of smart city systems.
2. EOAK/3236/2020 – Ombudsman’s Review of Smart Waste Management System
Facts:
A municipality implemented a smart waste collection system with sensors that track waste habits and generate reports linked to households. Complaints arose regarding data use without consent and unlawful profiling.
Findings:
The Parliamentary Ombudsman found that the system violated data minimization principles and lacked informed consent.
The system collected excessive personal data without adequate legal safeguards.
Importance:
Reinforced GDPR principles in municipal smart services.
Affirmed that automated systems are still subject to administrative due process and legal oversight.
3. KHO:2021:23 – Algorithmic Public Housing Allocation
Facts:
The city of Tampere introduced an algorithm to allocate public housing based on income, family size, and urgency. A single-parent applicant challenged the denial of housing, arguing the algorithm discriminated against her based on incomplete data.
Holding:
The Court held that algorithmic decision-making is legal only if it allows for human oversight.
Denying housing without individual consideration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and equality under Section 6 of the Constitution.
Importance:
Landmark decision regulating AI in administrative decisions.
Clarified that automated systems must allow appeal and explanation.
4. KHO:2019:47 – E-Mobility Data Sharing and Legal Basis
Facts:
A smart transport project in Espoo collected real-time location data from electric scooters and shared it with third-party developers for planning and commercial use. A privacy advocacy group sued for unlawful data sharing.
Holding:
Court found that data-sharing agreements lacked proper legal authorizations under public procurement and data protection laws.
Imposed limitations on secondary use of mobility data.
Importance:
Defined legal responsibilities of municipalities when partnering with private tech companies.
Reinforced the need for transparency and consent in public data ecosystems.
5. EOAK/2244/2022 – Accessibility in Smart City Applications
Facts:
A visually impaired person filed a complaint because the city’s smart parking app was inaccessible to screen readers, effectively denying access to public parking for persons with disabilities.
Findings:
The Ombudsman found a violation of accessibility and equality obligations under national and EU disability rights law.
Urged all municipalities to ensure universal design in smart applications.
Importance:
Linked digital transformation to non-discrimination and equal access.
Reinforced the state’s duty to ensure accessibility in digital services.
6. KHO:2022:55 – Drone Surveillance by Municipality
Facts:
A smart city pilot involved the use of drones for urban monitoring, including in residential areas, to detect environmental violations (illegal waste, noise, etc.). Residents complained about constant low-altitude surveillance.
Holding:
The Court found that municipal surveillance by drones required specific legal basis and must respect private life and property rights.
Declared the practice unconstitutional without enabling legislation.
Importance:
Key case limiting aerial surveillance under administrative law.
Clarified the balance between innovation and constitutional rights.
✅ Key Legal Takeaways from Case Law
| Legal Theme | Case(s) | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| AI and algorithmic decisions | KHO:2021:23 | Must allow human oversight, explanation, and appeal |
| Data protection and IoT | EOAK/3236/2020; KHO:2019:47 | Data collection must follow GDPR; no unauthorized secondary use |
| Surveillance technologies | KHO:2018:90; KHO:2022:55 | Facial recognition/drones need specific legal basis and must respect privacy |
| Accessibility and inclusion | EOAK/2244/2022 | Digital services must comply with accessibility laws and non-discrimination norms |
| Public-private tech partnerships | KHO:2019:47 | Must ensure legal compliance and data protection responsibilities |
⚖️ Constitutional and Administrative Law Principles in Smart Cities
| Legal Source | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Section 21, Finnish Constitution | Fair process, right to good administration |
| Section 10 | Privacy and personal data protection |
| Section 6 | Equality and non-discrimination |
| Administrative Procedure Act | Legal basis, hearing rights, reasoned decisions |
| GDPR & Data Protection Act | Data processing, consent, data subject rights |
📌 Final Remarks: Smart Cities Through the Lens of Administrative Law
Smart cities present tremendous opportunities, but they also challenge the traditional principles of administrative law. Finnish legal institutions, including the courts and the Ombudsman, have:
Reaffirmed legality and procedural fairness in tech-based administration.
Emphasized data protection, transparency, and accessibility.
Ensured that technological innovation does not undermine individual rights.
In short, administrative law is evolving to keep up with digital transformation — maintaining its core values while adapting to new realities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments