Administrative tasks of ministries in legislation preparation
🇫🇮 Administrative Tasks of Ministries in Legislative Preparation (Finland)
✅ I. Legal and Institutional Framework
Ministries in Finland play a central administrative and procedural role in preparing legislation. This is governed by:
The Constitution of Finland (Sections 80–94)
The Government Rules of Procedure (262/2003)
The Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003)
The Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999)
EU obligations (in harmonizing legislation)
✅ II. Key Administrative Tasks in Legislative Preparation
Ministries are responsible for:
Initiating legislative proposals
Drafting bills and regulatory impact assessments
Coordinating inter-ministerial and stakeholder consultation
Ensuring legal clarity, necessity, and constitutional compliance
Submitting bills to the Council of State (Valtioneuvosto)
Managing EU law transposition
Ensuring public participation and openness
Responding to parliamentary committees during the legislative process
✅ III. Legal Principles Governing Legislative Preparation
Legality (Perustuslaki, Section 2)
Good governance and procedural fairness (Administrative Procedure Act)
Openness and access to information
Non-discrimination and equality
Duty to assess constitutional and EU compatibility
📚 CASE LAW: Administrative Tasks of Ministries in Legislative Preparation
Now, let's explore six notable Finnish cases where ministries’ roles in preparing legislation or regulations were judicially or administratively reviewed.
🔹 1. KHO:2004:105 – Inadequate Impact Assessment
Facts:
The Ministry of Transport prepared a legislative amendment affecting rural public transport. The impact assessment was incomplete, with no analysis of how it would affect elderly or disabled citizens.
Held:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the inadequate preparatory work violated the principles of good governance, particularly regarding Section 6 of the Constitution (equality).
Key Takeaway:
Ministries must conduct thorough and inclusive impact assessments, especially when laws affect vulnerable groups.
🔹 2. Chancellor of Justice Case Dnro OKV/68/50/2015 – Deficient Inter-ministerial Consultation
Facts:
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health submitted a draft bill on pharmaceutical pricing without properly consulting the Ministry of Finance, despite economic implications.
Held:
The Chancellor of Justice reprimanded the Ministry for bypassing required inter-ministerial coordination, which may have led to constitutional or budgetary conflicts.
Key Takeaway:
Ministries must collaborate and coordinate, especially when proposed laws have financial, legal, or cross-sectoral impacts.
🔹 3. Parliamentary Ombudsman Case EOAK/1538/2020 – Failure to Ensure Public Participation
Facts:
A legislative proposal regarding digital identity was pushed forward by the Ministry of Finance without allowing sufficient time for public feedback.
Held:
The Ombudsman found that the Ministry violated the principles of openness and participatory democracy under the Act on Openness of Government Activities and constitutional provisions.
Key Takeaway:
Ministries must allow genuine and timely public participation during legislative preparation.
🔹 4. KHO:2013:89 – EU Law Transposition Error
Facts:
The Ministry of the Environment implemented an EU directive into national law, but failed to properly transpose several provisions regarding environmental liability.
Held:
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the failure led to inadequate legal protection and required correction.
Key Takeaway:
Ministries must ensure accurate and full transposition of EU law into national legislation. Errors here can lead to state liability or EU infringement procedures.
🔹 5. Chancellor of Justice Case OKV/456/1/2012 – Unconstitutional Norm Proposal
Facts:
The Ministry of the Interior prepared a bill restricting the right to protest near government buildings. No constitutional review was conducted during drafting.
Held:
The Chancellor concluded that the lack of constitutional scrutiny during preparation violated ministerial duties, and the proposal was withdrawn.
Key Takeaway:
Ministries must evaluate constitutional compatibility during the legislative drafting process—not leave it only to Parliament.
🔹 6. Parliamentary Ombudsman EOAK/2589/2021 – Biased Stakeholder Hearing
Facts:
The Ministry of Education only invited select private education providers to comment on a legislative amendment regarding funding. Public universities were excluded.
Held:
The Ombudsman found that the consultation process was biased, violating the principle of equal treatment in legislative preparation.
Key Takeaway:
Stakeholder consultation must be balanced and representative; ministries cannot favor one group over others.
🧩 Summary Table: Legal Failures and Principles
| Case (Body) | Legal Issue | Key Violation | Principle Invoked |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHO:2004:105 | Inadequate social impact assessment | Discrimination risk | Equality, Good Governance |
| OKV/68/50/2015 (Chancellor) | No finance ministry consultation | Poor coordination | Inter-ministerial Responsibility |
| EOAK/1538/2020 (Ombudsman) | Rushed digital ID law, no public hearing | Lack of transparency | Openness, Participatory Rights |
| KHO:2013:89 | EU directive poorly transposed | Legal error | EU Law Supremacy |
| OKV/456/1/2012 (Chancellor) | Bill lacked constitutional analysis | Substandard preparation | Constitutional Scrutiny Duty |
| EOAK/2589/2021 (Ombudsman) | Biased consultation process | Unequal stakeholder treatment | Equality, Administrative Fairness |
⚖️ Key Legal Duties of Ministries in Legislation Preparation (Summarized)
| Duty | Legal Source | Consequence of Violation |
|---|---|---|
| Lawful preparation | Constitution §2; Administrative Procedure Act | Proposal may be annulled or withdrawn |
| Equality and fairness | Constitution §6; APA §6 | Reprimand or recommendation by oversight |
| Stakeholder consultation | Openness Act; APA §41 | Ombudsman criticism; delay in process |
| EU law compatibility | Constitution §94; EU law | Risk of infringement proceedings |
| Constitutional review | Good legislative practice; Gov’t Rules of Procedure | Draft bill halted or rejected |
✅ Conclusion
In Finland, ministries are not merely political actors but administrative bodies bound by legal and ethical duties when preparing legislation. The Supreme Administrative Court, Chancellor of Justice, and Parliamentary Ombudsman have all emphasized that legislative drafting must follow:
Transparent procedures
Inclusive and unbiased stakeholder hearings
Proper legal impact assessments
EU and constitutional compliance
Failure to do so not only risks ineffective or unlawful legislation, but can also result in legal liability, administrative reprimands, or judicial annulment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments