Comparative study of legality principle in Finland and EU
Principle of Legality: Overview
In Finland:
The principle of legality means that public authorities can only act based on authority granted by law and must comply with all relevant legislation. It is rooted in the Finnish Constitution, especially:
Section 2: Equality before the law.
Section 80: Restriction of public power to powers granted by law.
Section 21: Good governance and rule of law.
This principle guides the Finnish administrative system, ensuring that any administrative action or decision has a legal basis and respects procedural fairness.
In the European Union:
The principle of legality is a general principle of EU law, meaning that EU institutions and Member States, when implementing EU law, must act within the powers conferred by the Treaties and secondary legislation.
Article 5 TEU limits the exercise of powers to those conferred.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) enforces legality, ensuring EU institutions act within their competence and that Member States comply with EU law.
It includes respect for fundamental rights as part of legality.
Comparative Points
| Aspect | Finland | European Union |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Finnish Constitution (Sections 2, 21, 80) | Treaty on European Union (Article 5 TEU), CJEU case law |
| Scope | National public authorities and administration | EU institutions and Member States implementing EU law |
| Emphasis | Strict compliance with national laws and procedural fairness | Competence limits, respect for fundamental rights, consistent interpretation |
| Judicial review | Administrative courts and Supreme Administrative Court | Court of Justice of the EU and national courts in preliminary rulings |
| Relation to fundamental rights | Strong constitutional protection, linked with legality | Fundamental rights as part of legality, enforced via EU Charter and ECtHR |
Case Law Illustrating the Principle of Legality
Case 1: KHO 2015:75 – Finnish Administrative Legality
Facts:
An administrative agency issued a permit allegedly without proper legal authority.
Issue:
Whether the agency acted within the powers granted by law.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Administrative Court emphasized that every administrative decision must have a statutory basis and that administrative discretion is limited by law. The decision without legal basis was annulled.
Impact:
Confirms strict adherence to legality in Finnish administration.
Case 2: CJEU, Commission v. Hungary (C-286/12), 2014
Facts:
The Commission challenged a Hungarian law allegedly exceeding national competence and violating EU law.
Issue:
Whether Hungary’s legislation was compatible with EU law and within its legal competence.
Court’s Analysis:
The CJEU held that Member States must respect the limits of their powers and cannot adopt laws that conflict with EU obligations, reaffirming the principle of legality.
Impact:
Emphasizes EU law supremacy and legality limits on Member States.
Case 3: KHO 2018:42 – Limits of Administrative Discretion
Facts:
A municipality imposed restrictions on a land use permit that were not explicitly authorized by law.
Issue:
Whether the municipality exceeded its legal authority.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the restrictions, stating that administrative discretion must be exercised strictly within the limits set by law and justified by clear legal grounds.
Impact:
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ role in enforcing legality and restricting arbitrary decisions.
Case 4: CJEU, Vodafone and Others (Joined Cases C-58/08 to C-68/08), 2010
Facts:
EU institutions had adopted regulatory measures affecting telecommunications operators.
Issue:
Whether these measures exceeded EU regulatory powers.
Court’s Analysis:
The CJEU held that EU institutions must act within powers conferred by the Treaties and ensure legality in rule-making and enforcement, balancing competences and rights protection.
Impact:
Underlines the legality principle as a check on EU institutional power.
Case 5: KHO 2012:40 – Proportionality and Legality in Administrative Sanctions
Facts:
An administrative penalty was imposed by an AVI for environmental violation.
Issue:
Whether the penalty was legally grounded and proportionate under Finnish law.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court reiterated that legality includes not only formal legal basis but also substantive requirements such as proportionality. The sanction was reduced due to disproportionate severity.
Impact:
Shows Finnish legality incorporates proportionality to ensure fair administration.
Summary: Comparative Insights
In Finland, legality is a constitutional and administrative law cornerstone, ensuring all government action has a clear legal basis and respects procedural rules. Finnish courts rigorously control administrative discretion.
In the EU, legality limits both EU institutions and Member States, ensuring they act within competences conferred by treaties and EU law. The CJEU plays a vital role in enforcing legality and balancing fundamental rights.
Both systems embed legality within broader rule of law and fundamental rights frameworks, but the EU context adds a supranational layer requiring consistent interpretation across Member States.
RELATED Blog
0 comments