Administrative powers of the Finnish Government (Council of State)
Administrative Powers of the Finnish Government (Council of State)
Overview
The Finnish Government, known as the Council of State (Valtioneuvosto), is the highest executive authority in Finland. It is responsible for implementing laws, directing the administration, and managing the overall governance of the state. The Government's administrative powers derive mainly from the Constitution of Finland (1999), various statutes, and delegated authority.
Key administrative powers include:
Issuing decrees (ministerial regulations) to implement laws.
Supervising and directing government agencies and municipalities.
Managing foreign relations and national defense.
Preparing the state budget and economic policy.
Making decisions on licenses, permits, and other administrative authorizations.
Overseeing national security and emergency powers.
The Government’s administrative power is subject to constitutional limits, judicial review, and principles such as legality, proportionality, and good governance.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Administrative Powers of the Finnish Government
1. Constitutional Law Committee 1997: Finnish Government’s Decree-Making Power
Summary:
This case involved a review by the Parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee (CLC) concerning the Government's power to issue decrees without explicit legislative authorization.
Key Points:
The Government may issue decrees to implement laws, but only within the boundaries set by Parliament.
The CLC emphasized that decrees must not extend the scope of laws or introduce new rules that would require parliamentary approval.
The case reinforced the principle of legality and parliamentary supremacy over delegation of legislative powers.
Administrative Law Implication:
The Government's administrative power to issue decrees is limited to detailed regulation and cannot substitute for laws enacted by Parliament. This ensures democratic legitimacy and rule of law.
2. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO 2009:24 (Environmental Permit Case)
Summary:
The Government had issued administrative instructions affecting environmental permits, which were challenged for overstepping the legal mandate.
Key Points:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the Government must act within statutory authority when issuing administrative instructions.
The Government cannot impose new substantive requirements outside the law.
The decision highlighted the limits of administrative discretion when exercising regulatory powers.
Administrative Law Implication:
Administrative powers of the Government are bound by the principle of legality, ensuring that executive instructions do not override or contradict existing laws.
3. Supreme Court Decision KKO 2010:78 (Emergency Powers and Government Authority)
Summary:
During a national emergency, the Government invoked special emergency powers to impose restrictions on movement and gatherings.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Government had sufficient legal basis for its emergency decrees.
It confirmed that under the Finnish Constitution and Emergency Powers Act, the Government can exercise extraordinary administrative powers but must respect fundamental rights.
The decision stressed proportionality and necessity in exercising emergency administrative powers.
Administrative Law Implication:
The Government's administrative powers during emergencies are extensive but legally bounded by constitutional safeguards, requiring judicial oversight to prevent abuse.
4. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO 2014:47 (Immigration Administrative Powers)
Summary:
The Government issued a regulation modifying the criteria for granting residence permits, which was contested by applicants and advocacy groups.
Key Points:
The Court ruled that the Government must ensure regulations comply with the Aliens Act and international human rights obligations.
It emphasized transparency, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness in administrative rulemaking.
The Government’s power to modify administrative criteria is subject to judicial review.
Administrative Law Implication:
The Government’s administrative powers to regulate immigration are subject to legal constraints and judicial scrutiny to protect individual rights.
5. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO 2018:51 (Public Procurement and Administrative Oversight)
Summary:
The Government issued guidelines influencing public procurement procedures for state contracts. A contractor challenged the guidelines as unfair administrative interference.
Key Points:
The Court found that the Government has the authority to issue guidelines to ensure uniformity and legality in public procurement.
However, the guidelines must be consistent with procurement laws and principles of fairness.
The Government’s administrative power to direct subordinate authorities is affirmed but bounded by law.
Administrative Law Implication:
The Government’s supervisory role over state administration involves guidance and coordination, but this power cannot violate legal norms or procedural fairness.
Summary of Administrative Powers of the Finnish Government with Case Law
| Power | Case Example | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Decree-making power | Constitutional Law Committee 1997 | Must act within parliamentary authorization |
| Issuing administrative instructions | KHO 2009:24 (Environmental) | Bound by statutory authority and legality principle |
| Emergency powers | KKO 2010:78 (Emergency restrictions) | Subject to constitutional limits, proportionality, and necessity |
| Immigration regulations | KHO 2014:47 (Residence permit criteria) | Must comply with statutes and human rights |
| Supervisory guidelines | KHO 2018:51 (Public procurement) | Power to coordinate subordinate authorities, bounded by law |
Additional Notes
The Finnish Constitution (731/1999) is the supreme legal source regulating the Government’s administrative powers.
Government decisions and regulations are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO).
The Government must respect principles such as legality, transparency, proportionality, and protection of fundamental rights.
The Government's power to intervene in local administration and state agencies is significant but constrained by law and democratic accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments