Constitutional basis of Finnish administrative law
🔹 Constitutional Basis of Finnish Administrative Law
Overview
Finnish administrative law regulates the actions of public authorities and ensures that their powers are exercised lawfully, fairly, and transparently. Its constitutional basis stems primarily from the Constitution of Finland (1999), which outlines fundamental principles governing public administration.
Key Constitutional Provisions Relevant to Administrative Law:
Principle of Legality
Public authorities must act in accordance with the law (Section 2, Constitution).
Administrative decisions must have a legal basis and be consistent with existing legislation.
Right to Good Governance (Section 21)
Everyone has the right to good governance.
Administrative authorities must act impartially, justify their decisions, and apply laws correctly.
Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Protection (Section 22)
Everyone is entitled to judicial protection against administrative decisions.
Provides for the right to appeal administrative decisions to courts.
Equality before the Law (Section 6)
Equal treatment by authorities; no discrimination.
Right to be Heard (Section 21)
The right of parties to present their views before decisions affecting them are made.
Core principles derived from the Constitution and administrative law practice:
Legality and rule of law — All administrative acts must be lawful.
Transparency — Decisions and procedures should be open and clear.
Impartiality and neutrality — Public officials must avoid conflicts of interest.
Proportionality — Measures taken by authorities must be proportionate to the aim pursued.
Right to a fair hearing — Parties must have the chance to be heard before decisions.
🔹 Important Finnish Administrative Law Case Laws
✅ 1. KHO 1991:9 (Supreme Administrative Court Decision)
Facts:
A municipality refused a construction permit citing local zoning plans. The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that the refusal was arbitrary and violated the principle of proportionality.
Issue:
Whether the municipality's refusal was lawful and proportionate.
Held:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the municipality must base its decisions on clear legal grounds, and apply the principle of proportionality — balancing the public interest against the applicant’s rights.
Importance:
Reinforces principle of legality and proportionality in administrative decisions.
Administrative bodies must justify their decisions with legal basis and proportional reasoning.
✅ 2. KHO 1993:108 (Right to be Heard Case)
Facts:
An administrative decision was made without allowing the affected party to be heard.
Issue:
Whether the failure to grant a hearing violated the constitutional right to good governance.
Held:
The Court emphasized the importance of the right to be heard as guaranteed by the Constitution (Section 21). Administrative decisions must be preceded by the opportunity to present views.
Importance:
Established that fair hearing is a constitutional requirement in Finnish administrative procedure.
Lack of hearing can invalidate decisions.
✅ 3. KHO 2005:25 (Judicial Review and Legal Protection)
Facts:
A government agency imposed a sanction on a citizen without sufficient evidence.
Issue:
Whether the sanctioning decision was legally valid and if the citizen’s right to legal protection was violated.
Held:
The Court annulled the sanction, stating that citizens have the right to legal protection, including access to judicial review of administrative acts (Constitution Section 22).
Importance:
Confirmed judicial control over administrative decisions.
Ensures accountability of authorities.
✅ 4. KHO 2010:21 (Equality before the Law)
Facts:
Two individuals in similar situations received different administrative treatment.
Issue:
Whether differential treatment violated the constitutional principle of equality.
Held:
The Court held that administrative authorities must treat similar cases alike unless there is a justified legal reason for differentiation.
Importance:
Upholds non-discrimination and equality in public administration.
Ensures fairness in government decisions.
✅ 5. KHO 2018:65 (Transparency and Justification of Decisions)
Facts:
An administrative agency made a decision but failed to provide adequate reasoning.
Issue:
Whether the failure to justify the decision breached the constitutional right to good governance.
Held:
The Court ruled that every administrative decision must be properly reasoned to ensure transparency and accountability.
Importance:
Clarified the obligation of authorities to give reasons for their decisions.
Strengthens trust and oversight in administrative law.
🔹 Summary Table
| Constitutional Principle | Case Illustration | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Legality & Proportionality | KHO 1991:9 | Decisions must have legal basis and be proportionate |
| Right to be Heard | KHO 1993:108 | Hearing is mandatory before adverse decisions |
| Legal Protection & Judicial Review | KHO 2005:25 | Citizens have the right to challenge decisions in court |
| Equality Before Law | KHO 2010:21 | Equal cases must be treated equally |
| Transparency & Reasoned Decisions | KHO 2018:65 | Administrative decisions must be justified and transparent |
🔹 Conclusion
The Finnish Constitution provides a robust framework for administrative law, emphasizing legality, fairness, transparency, equality, and judicial protection. The Supreme Administrative Court’s decisions have consistently reinforced these constitutional guarantees, shaping a transparent and accountable public administration system in Finland.
RELATED Blog
0 comments