Constitutional rights in Finnish administrative law
Constitutional Rights in Finnish Administrative Law
Finnish administrative law operates within the framework of the Finnish Constitution (Perustuslaki), which guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms. These constitutional rights affect how administrative authorities act and how courts review administrative decisions.
Key constitutional rights relevant in administrative law include:
Right to legal protection (Rule of Law, Chapter 2, Section 21 of the Constitution)
Right to good governance (Chapter 2, Section 22)
Right to a fair trial (Chapter 2, Section 23)
Right to be heard (Section 21, Subsection 2)
Equality before the law (Chapter 2, Section 6)
Freedom of religion, speech, and assembly
Administrative decisions must comply with these rights, and Finnish courts, especially the Supreme Administrative Court, ensure this compliance.
Case Law Explaining Constitutional Rights in Finnish Administrative Law
1. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO:1998:101
Topic: Right to legal protection and judicial review of administrative decisions
Facts: The case concerned an administrative decision on a social welfare matter where the applicant claimed their constitutional right to legal protection had been violated.
Court’s Ruling: The KHO emphasized that every individual has the right to legal protection under the Constitution, meaning administrative decisions must be subject to effective judicial review. The court highlighted that administrative authorities must act within their legal competence and respect procedural fairness.
Significance: This case established that constitutional guarantees require not only fair decisions but also the availability of judicial review as a safeguard against unlawful administrative acts.
2. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO:2002:75
Topic: Right to be heard in administrative procedures (Section 21 of the Constitution)
Facts: An administrative body issued a permit decision without properly hearing the affected party.
Court’s Ruling: The KHO ruled that the right to be heard is a fundamental constitutional right that ensures procedural fairness in administrative decisions. The failure to provide an opportunity to be heard rendered the decision invalid.
Significance: This case clarified the strict application of the right to be heard in administrative procedures, reinforcing that affected persons must be given a chance to present their case before decisions affecting them are made.
3. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO:2006:45
Topic: Equality before the law in administrative decisions (Section 6 of the Constitution)
Facts: A public authority treated two similar applicants differently without objective justification.
Court’s Ruling: The court found the unequal treatment violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The administrative act was annulled for discrimination and lack of equal treatment.
Significance: This case underscored that administrative authorities must apply laws and regulations equally, respecting the constitutional principle of non-discrimination.
4. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO:2011:101
Topic: Right to good governance and administrative discretion (Section 22 of the Constitution)
Facts: The issue involved whether an administrative authority exercised its discretionary powers appropriately and transparently.
Court’s Ruling: The KHO held that the right to good governance demands that administrative decisions be made impartially, transparently, and within the limits of the law. Abuse of discretion or arbitrariness violates constitutional rights.
Significance: This ruling emphasized the constitutional control over administrative discretion, ensuring decisions are reasoned and free from arbitrary or improper motives.
5. Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO:2016:54
Topic: Right to a fair trial and access to court (Section 23 of the Constitution)
Facts: The case involved limitations imposed on the right to appeal an administrative decision.
Court’s Ruling: The KHO emphasized the constitutional guarantee that every person has the right to have their case fairly examined by an independent court. Restrictions on access to courts must be justified by law and proportionate.
Significance: This case confirmed the constitutional protection of fair trial rights extends to administrative litigation, ensuring effective access to justice.
Summary of Constitutional Rights in Finnish Administrative Law
Right to Legal Protection: Administrative decisions must be subject to judicial review.
Right to be Heard: Individuals affected by administrative decisions must have an opportunity to present their case.
Equality: Administrative bodies must treat similar cases alike and avoid discrimination.
Good Governance: Authorities must exercise discretion within legal boundaries, impartially and transparently.
RELATED Blog
0 comments