Social security administration in Finland
Social Security Administration in Finland: Overview
Finland has a comprehensive social security system, designed to provide financial support and social services to residents in need. The system is based on legislation, with various laws governing different benefits (like unemployment, pensions, health care, child benefits, disability, etc.).
The main administrative body responsible for social security is Kela (The Social Insurance Institution of Finland), which manages benefits like sickness allowance, unemployment benefits, pensions, and more.
Key Principles:
Universal coverage: Residents of Finland are generally covered under social security.
Non-discrimination: Benefits are provided irrespective of income or employment status, based on eligibility.
Legal protection: Decisions by Kela can be appealed in courts, ensuring judicial oversight.
Important Finnish Social Security Laws
Social Insurance Code (Sosiaaliturvalaki): Central legislation for benefits.
Health Insurance Act
Unemployment Security Act
Pension Acts
Finnish Social Security Case Law
Finnish courts, including the Administrative Courts and the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO), have issued key rulings on social security disputes, helping interpret the law and establish precedents.
Case 1: KHO 2014:48 – Eligibility for Unemployment Benefits Based on Work History
Facts:
The claimant applied for unemployment benefits but Kela rejected the claim, arguing insufficient work history in Finland to meet eligibility requirements.
Issue:
Whether work done abroad (in another EU country) could be considered when assessing eligibility for unemployment benefits under Finnish law.
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that under EU social security coordination rules, periods of insurance or work in other EU countries must be taken into account. The claimant was entitled to benefits based on combined work history.
Significance:
This case clarified how EU regulations interplay with Finnish social security, reinforcing rights for cross-border workers.
Case 2: KHO 2016:120 – Disability Pension and Degree of Disability
Facts:
The claimant applied for a disability pension, which Kela denied, stating the disability was not severe enough.
Issue:
The court needed to interpret the criteria for the degree of disability and whether the medical evidence supported the claim.
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the claimant's medical condition caused a substantial and permanent reduction in work ability, meeting the threshold for disability pension.
Significance:
This case set a clear standard for evaluating medical evidence and defining “degree of disability” for pension eligibility.
Case 3: KHO 2018:92 – Child Benefit and Custody Disputes
Facts:
In a dispute over child benefit payments, one parent claimed entitlement, but Kela refused, citing shared custody arrangements.
Issue:
Who is entitled to receive child benefits when custody is shared?
Decision:
The court ruled that child benefits are generally paid to the parent who has the child’s primary residence. In joint custody cases, benefit eligibility is divided proportionally.
Significance:
This decision helped clarify benefit distribution in complex family arrangements.
Case 4: KHO 2019:135 – Sickness Allowance and Work During Illness
Facts:
The claimant was granted sickness allowance but then worked part-time during the allowance period. Kela stopped payments, arguing breach of conditions.
Issue:
Whether working part-time during sickness allowance period disqualifies the claimant.
Decision:
The court decided that partial work is allowed if it does not contradict medical incapacity for work. If the claimant can perform some work without worsening health, allowance might continue, but in this case, working contradicted the medical certificate.
Significance:
Clarified the boundaries of sickness allowance and part-time work during illness.
Case 5: KHO 2020:101 – Pension Rights for Self-Employed Persons
Facts:
A self-employed person claimed pension benefits, but Kela denied, saying self-employed persons did not fulfill contribution requirements.
Issue:
Whether the claimant’s self-employment activities met the threshold for pension eligibility.
Decision:
The court emphasized that self-employed persons must prove regular contributions and sufficient income from their activity. The claimant was entitled to pension based on documented contributions.
Significance:
Defined clear rules for self-employed persons’ pension rights, balancing flexibility with social security coverage.
Summary
The Finnish social security system is robust but requires careful interpretation in individual cases, particularly regarding eligibility and benefit calculations. These court decisions illustrate important principles such as:
Incorporation of EU rules for cross-border workers
Medical evaluation standards for disability
Distribution of benefits in family disputes
Conditions for sickness allowance during partial work
Rights of self-employed individuals to pensions
RELATED Blog
0 comments