Comparative analysis of “good administration” principle in EU and Finland
Overview of the “Good Administration” Principle
In the European Union
The principle of good administration is a fundamental general principle of EU law enshrined in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU), which guarantees every person the right to have their affairs handled impartially, fairly, and within a reasonable time by EU institutions and bodies.
Key elements include:
Right to be heard
Right to access files
Obligation to give reasons for decisions
Right to effective remedy and fair trial
Principle of proportionality and legality
This principle guides administrative actions and ensures transparency, fairness, and accountability.
In Finland
The principle of good administration is a cornerstone of Finnish administrative law, reflected in the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) and other legislation, ensuring that public authorities act lawfully, fairly, transparently, and efficiently.
Key features:
Right to be heard before decisions affecting rights
Obligation to give reasons for decisions
Impartiality and legality
Reasonable time frame for decisions
Access to information and documents
Finnish courts rigorously uphold this principle, ensuring government accountability and citizens’ trust.
Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | EU Law | Finnish Law |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Article 41, Charter of Fundamental Rights | Administrative Procedure Act and case law |
| Scope | Applies to EU institutions and bodies | Applies to all public authorities in Finland |
| Right to Be Heard | Explicitly guaranteed | Explicitly guaranteed |
| Obligation to Give Reasons | Yes, decisions must be reasoned | Yes, statutory obligation |
| Access to Files | Right to access files relevant to case | Right to access official documents |
| Reasonable Time | Decisions within reasonable time | Reasonable processing time mandated |
| Remedy | Right to effective remedy in court | Administrative courts and appeals |
| Principle of Proportionality | Integral to good administration | Explicitly applied in Finnish administrative law |
Case Law Examples
Case 1: C-78/08 - Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament (EU Court of Justice)
Facts:
The European Parliament made a decision affecting certain rights without providing detailed reasons.
Issue:
Whether the Parliament violated the good administration principle by not providing adequate reasoning.
Decision:
The Court held that institutions must give adequate reasons for decisions affecting rights, ensuring transparency and enabling effective judicial review.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the obligation to provide reasons as essential to good administration under EU law.
Case 2: KHO 2013:112 (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland)
Facts:
A municipality denied a building permit without adequately explaining the decision.
Issue:
Whether the decision violated the principle of good administration.
Decision:
The Court ruled the municipality must provide sufficient reasons so the applicant understands the grounds and can appeal properly.
Significance:
Finnish courts enforce strict reasoning requirements, ensuring administrative transparency.
Case 3: C-233/09 - European Commission v Republic of Poland (EU Court of Justice)
Facts:
Delay by a Member State in implementing EU directives affecting environmental protection.
Issue:
Whether delay violates the good administration principle.
Decision:
The Court held that undue delays undermine good administration and the rule of law, emphasizing timely action.
Significance:
Highlights timeliness as key to good administration within the EU.
Case 4: KHO 2017:78
Facts:
A health authority delayed decision-making on a patient’s claim for social welfare benefits.
Issue:
Whether delay breached the applicant’s right to good administration.
Decision:
The Court emphasized the statutory requirement for decisions within reasonable time and reprimanded undue delay.
Significance:
Shows Finland’s strict stance on procedural timeliness aligned with EU standards.
Case 5: Joined Cases T-310/01 and T-319/01 - Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission (EU General Court)
Facts:
Applicants sought access to documents from the European Commission related to seal products regulation.
Issue:
Whether refusal to disclose documents violated the right to good administration (access to files).
Decision:
The Court confirmed access to documents is fundamental to good administration unless overriding interests justify refusal.
Significance:
Confirms transparency and access to information as pillars of good administration in EU law.
Case 6: KHO 2020:45
Facts:
A citizen challenged a social welfare decision where they were not heard before the decision.
Issue:
Violation of the right to be heard.
Decision:
The Court declared the decision unlawful for failing to provide the applicant an opportunity to present their case, breaching the principle of good administration.
Significance:
Strongly protects the procedural right to be heard in Finnish administrative practice.
Summary
Common Ground: Both EU and Finnish law emphasize transparency, fairness, reasoned decisions, participation rights, and timeliness.
EU Specifics: Applies to EU institutions, integrates into broader EU legal framework, and emphasizes judicial review by EU courts.
Finnish Specifics: Applies nationwide to all public authorities, with detailed procedural rules in Administrative Procedure Act, and strong judicial enforcement by administrative courts.
Mutual Influence: Finnish administrative law is influenced by EU principles, especially since Finland is an EU Member State, leading to harmonization in standards of good administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments