Binding effect of CJEU rulings on Finnish administrative courts
🏛️ Binding Effect of CJEU Rulings on Finnish Administrative Courts
Overview
Finland is a Member State of the European Union and hence part of the EU legal order.
According to EU law principles, CJEU rulings are binding on all Member States, including their national courts.
This means Finnish administrative courts must follow the interpretations of EU law provided by the CJEU.
The primacy of EU law requires Finnish courts to set aside conflicting national law or administrative decisions.
Finnish courts, including administrative courts, act as “EU law courts”, ensuring effective and uniform application of EU law.
The Finnish system requires administrative courts to refer questions of EU law to the CJEU when there is doubt about interpretation (under Article 267 TFEU, preliminary ruling procedure).
Key Legal Principles:
Primacy of EU Law: EU law prevails over national law (including Finnish administrative law).
Direct Effect: EU law provisions can be invoked by individuals before Finnish administrative courts.
Preliminary Ruling Procedure: Finnish courts must seek CJEU rulings on questions of EU law to ensure consistent interpretation.
Binding Nature of CJEU Judgments: Finnish courts are bound by CJEU interpretations and must apply them.
Important Case Laws and Examples
✅ 1. Case C-106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA (1978)
Facts:
Italian authorities tried to apply national rules that conflicted with EU law.
Principle:
The CJEU ruled that national courts must immediately apply EU law and set aside conflicting national legislation, without waiting for national legislation to be repealed.
Impact on Finnish administrative courts:
This principle is fully binding.
Finnish administrative courts must disapply any Finnish law conflicting with directly applicable EU law.
Ensures the immediate effect and supremacy of EU law.
✅ 2. Case C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos (1963)
Facts:
A Dutch company challenged customs duties imposed by the national government.
Principle:
Established the doctrine of direct effect: EU law provisions can be enforced by individuals before national courts.
Impact:
Finnish administrative courts are bound to apply EU law provisions directly.
They must enforce EU law even if there is no implementing Finnish legislation.
✅ 3. Case C-188/89 Foster v. British Gas (1990)
Facts:
Concerned the question of whether a public entity was an “emanation of the state” and thus subject to certain obligations under EU law.
Principle:
Clarified which bodies can be liable under EU law obligations.
Impact:
Finnish administrative courts use this ruling to determine whether Finnish public bodies must comply with specific EU law obligations.
Demonstrates how CJEU rulings guide administrative courts in applying EU law to national administrative bodies.
✅ 4. KHO: Supreme Administrative Court of Finland Case KHO 2017:61
Facts:
This is a Finnish Supreme Administrative Court case that referred a question to the CJEU about the interpretation of the EU's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).
Principle:
Illustrates the Finnish administrative courts’ role in referring preliminary questions to the CJEU.
Upon receiving CJEU guidance, the Finnish courts apply CJEU rulings bindingly in the national case.
Impact:
Shows how Finnish courts respect and follow CJEU rulings in administrative matters.
Reinforces the binding effect of CJEU interpretation in Finnish legal proceedings.
✅ 5. Case C-411/10 N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011)
Facts:
Concerned the obligations of EU Member States under the Dublin Regulation concerning asylum seekers.
Principle:
The CJEU ruled that Member States’ administrative decisions must comply with EU fundamental rights.
Impact on Finnish administrative courts:
Finnish administrative courts must interpret and apply Finnish immigration law in compliance with this ruling.
Administrative courts cannot uphold Finnish administrative decisions that violate EU law principles laid down by the CJEU.
Additional Important Notes:
Finnish administrative courts cannot overrule CJEU judgments or interpret EU law contrary to CJEU rulings.
Failure to follow CJEU rulings can lead to infringement procedures against Finland by the European Commission.
Finnish courts have actively used the preliminary ruling procedure to seek guidance, showing respect for the binding nature of CJEU decisions.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle | Effect on Finnish Administrative Courts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simmenthal (C-106/77) | 1978 | Primacy of EU law | Must disapply conflicting Finnish laws immediately |
| Van Gend en Loos (C-26/62) | 1963 | Direct effect | Apply EU law directly without national law |
| Foster (C-188/89) | 1990 | Definition of “emanation of state” | Apply EU law obligations to Finnish public bodies |
| KHO 2017:61 (Finland) | 2017 | Referral to CJEU for preliminary ruling | Follow CJEU binding interpretation |
| N.S. v UK (C-411/10) | 2011 | Compliance with EU fundamental rights | Finnish administrative decisions must comply with EU law |
Conclusion
Finnish administrative courts are bound by the rulings of the CJEU and must interpret Finnish administrative law in conformity with EU law.
The principle of primacy and direct effect ensures that CJEU judgments have an immediate and binding effect.
Finnish courts play an important role in the enforcement and interpretation of EU law, maintaining legal harmony within the Union.
The preliminary ruling procedure strengthens cooperation between Finnish courts and the CJEU, ensuring consistent application of EU law across Member States.
RELATED Blog
0 comments