Comparative study of Finnish and EU discretion standards
Comparative Study of Finnish and EU Discretion Standards
What is Administrative Discretion?
Discretion refers to the power granted to public authorities to make decisions within the bounds of the law, particularly where the law allows for choice or judgment rather than prescribing a fixed outcome.
It involves judgment calls on matters such as policy implementation, sanctions, and procedural choices.
Discretion is essential to flexible and responsive administration but must be exercised lawfully, reasonably, and proportionately.
Finnish Discretion Standards
Key Features:
Finnish administrative law grants discretion where statutes do not prescribe a rigid rule.
Courts focus on legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
Discretion must be exercised in accordance with the purpose of the law and must not be arbitrary.
Finnish courts tend to apply a narrow margin of discretion in administrative review.
Decisions are reviewed for legal basis, purpose, and procedural correctness, but not for policy merits unless discretion is clearly abused.
Finnish Case Law Examples:
1. KHO 1994:123
Facts: A municipality refused a license based on its discretion under local regulations.
Issue: Whether the refusal was lawful or an abuse of discretion.
Decision: The Supreme Administrative Court held that discretion must align with the law’s purpose and not be arbitrary.
Significance: Established that discretionary decisions must be justified and tied to statutory objectives.
2. KHO 2002:98
Facts: A social welfare agency exercised discretion in granting benefits.
Issue: Whether refusal was reasonable and lawful.
Decision: The court emphasized that discretion should be exercised fairly and proportionately, respecting individual circumstances.
Significance: Affirmed the importance of balancing individual rights and administrative discretion.
3. KHO 2010:112
Facts: Discretion exercised in tax assessment challenged.
Issue: Whether discretion was used within legal limits.
Decision: The court annulled the decision due to disproportionate use of discretion.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts’ willingness to correct excessive or unreasonable discretion.
4. KHO 2018:45
Facts: A land use permit was denied using discretionary powers.
Issue: Whether denial was legally justified.
Decision: Court upheld the denial as consistent with urban planning laws and proportional.
Significance: Demonstrates deference to administrative expertise when discretion is properly exercised.
5. KHO 2020:67
Facts: An administrative fine was imposed based on discretionary guidelines.
Issue: Whether discretion was abused.
Decision: The court reduced the fine, finding the discretion had been exercised excessively.
Significance: Reiterates the principle of proportionality in discretionary decisions.
EU Discretion Standards
Key Features:
EU law grants discretion mainly to EU institutions and member states in areas like competition law, state aid, environmental regulation, etc.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reviews discretion using standards such as manifest error, misuse of powers, and proportionality.
The CJEU applies strict control to ensure discretionary powers are not abused.
EU discretion review often involves a margin of appreciation, especially in technical or complex policy areas, but with strong safeguards against arbitrariness.
Principles like proportionality, legal certainty, and non-discrimination guide discretion.
EU Case Law Examples:
1. Case 31/87, Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt (1988)
Facts: Discretionary tax exemption denied.
Issue: Whether the discretion was misused.
Decision: The CJEU held that discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily and must respect proportionality.
Significance: Reinforced non-arbitrariness and proportionality in discretionary tax matters.
2. Case C-24/95, Commission v. Council (1998)
Facts: Challenge to discretionary powers in trade policy.
Issue: Whether powers were exercised within legal limits.
Decision: The Court found a misuse of discretion where decisions went beyond the legal mandate.
Significance: Affirmed strict control over discretionary powers.
3. Case C-331/88, Belgium v. Commission (1991)
Facts: State aid decision challenged based on discretion.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised lawfully.
Decision: The Court annulled the Commission’s decision for failure to provide adequate reasoning.
Significance: Highlights transparency and reasoned exercise of discretion.
4. Case C-530/11, European Parliament v. Council (2014)
Facts: Discretion exercised in legislative delegation.
Issue: Limits on discretionary delegation.
Decision: Court set clear limits to prevent excessive discretionary powers.
Significance: Balances institutional discretion with accountability.
5. Case C-79/17, Commission v. Hungary (2018)
Facts: Discretionary measures in immigration policy.
Issue: Whether discretion complied with EU fundamental rights.
Decision: Court struck down measures violating proportionality and fundamental rights.
Significance: Shows how discretion must align with core EU principles.
Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Finland | EU |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of discretion | Narrower, focused on legality, purpose, and fairness | Broader, with more complex institutional actors |
| Review standards | Legality, procedural fairness, proportionality | Manifest error, misuse of powers, proportionality |
| Margin of appreciation | Limited, strict legality focus | Wider, especially in technical/political areas |
| Role of courts | Supreme Administrative Court and lower courts | Court of Justice of the EU |
| Emphasis | Avoid abuse, prevent arbitrariness, ensure fairness | Balance institutional discretion with legal limits |
| Use of proportionality | Central to review of discretionary acts | Core principle for reviewing discretion |
Summary
Both Finland and the EU emphasize lawfulness, proportionality, and reasonableness in discretion.
Finnish review is more formalistic and narrow, focusing on legality and procedural correctness.
EU review is broader and more political, considering institutional balance and fundamental rights.
Case law from both jurisdictions underscores the need for justification, non-arbitrariness, and respect for statutory purpose in discretionary decisions.
The concept of proportionality is a cornerstone in both systems but more developed in EU law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments