Discretion in granting social security benefits
Discretion in Granting Social Security Benefits in Finland
I. Introduction to Discretion in Social Security
Social security benefits in Finland include pensions, unemployment benefits, sickness allowances, disability benefits, etc., administered primarily by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela) and various ministries or municipalities.
Discretion in granting benefits means officials have a degree of judgment in interpreting eligibility criteria, assessing applications, and applying the law within limits.
II. Legal Framework Governing Discretion
Social Security Laws (e.g., the Sickness Insurance Act, Unemployment Security Act)
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003)
Constitution of Finland (Section 2: legality, Section 6: equality)
Principles of good governance and reasoned decision-making
Discretion must be exercised within legal boundaries, fairness, and proportionality, avoiding arbitrariness.
III. Scope of Discretion
Determining eligibility when law uses vague criteria.
Deciding benefit levels when law allows variable amounts.
Assessing evidence and credibility of applicants.
Weighing social and economic circumstances.
Applying exceptions or special provisions.
IV. Key Principles in Judicial Review of Discretion
Discretion must be reasonable and justifiable.
Must respect equality and avoid discrimination.
Decisions must be properly motivated.
Abuse of discretion or arbitrariness leads to annulment.
Courts do not usually replace discretionary judgment unless clearly erroneous.
V. Finnish Case Law Examples with Explanation
🔹 1. KHO:2007:38 – Reasonableness of Discretion in Disability Pension
Facts:
Applicant applied for disability pension; medical evidence was partly inconclusive. Kela denied benefits citing insufficient disability level.
Held:
KHO held that Kela’s discretion was exercised reasonably, given the evidence. However, the decision lacked detailed justification.
Key Points:
Discretionary denial was upheld, but KHO emphasized the need for thorough reasoning.
Demonstrates that courts respect discretion but require transparency.
🔹 2. KHO:2013:76 – Discretion in Social Assistance Granting
Facts:
An applicant sought additional social assistance due to exceptional costs (medical equipment). Municipality refused, stating costs did not meet exceptional threshold.
Held:
Court annulled refusal as the municipality had not adequately considered all relevant factors and failed to apply discretion properly.
Key Points:
Discretion must be exercised by considering all circumstances.
Failure to do so leads to abuse of discretion.
🔹 3. KHO:2016:85 – Discretion and Equal Treatment
Facts:
Two applicants with similar medical conditions received different sickness allowances from Kela due to different interpretations by regional offices.
Held:
KHO held that discretion must be applied uniformly to ensure equality. The differential treatment violated administrative fairness.
Key Points:
Discretion cannot lead to unequal treatment without objective justification.
Administrative bodies must have consistent guidelines.
🔹 4. KHO:2018:42 – Discretion on Partial Disability Benefits
Facts:
Applicant requested partial disability pension after partial recovery. Kela granted reduced benefits, but applicant contested the amount.
Held:
KHO confirmed that determining benefit level involves discretion, but the decision must be supported by medical and economic evidence.
Key Points:
Discretionary benefit levels require fact-based decisions.
Courts supervise to ensure decisions are not arbitrary.
🔹 5. Chancellor of Justice Decision OKV/789/2019 – Delay in Discretionary Decision
Facts:
Kela delayed a discretionary decision on unemployment benefits, causing hardship.
Held:
Chancellor of Justice criticized the delay as a breach of the duty to handle matters without undue delay, particularly when discretion is involved.
Key Points:
Administrative discretion must be exercised promptly.
Delays in discretionary decisions violate principles of good governance.
🔹 6. KHO:2021:15 – Discretion in Interpreting Social Security Law During COVID-19
Facts:
During COVID-19, temporary laws allowed flexible discretion in unemployment benefits. Kela applied discretion to grant benefits beyond normal criteria.
Held:
KHO upheld flexible discretionary use, highlighting the importance of adapting discretion in emergencies but stressed that it must still comply with law.
Key Points:
Discretion can be expanded in exceptional circumstances.
Still subject to legal limits and reasonableness.
VI. Summary of Legal Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness and justification | Discretionary decisions must be well reasoned | KHO:2007:38 |
| Consideration of all factors | Must evaluate all relevant circumstances | KHO:2013:76 |
| Equality and consistency | Similar cases must be treated alike | KHO:2016:85 |
| Fact-based discretionary decisions | Benefit levels require evidence support | KHO:2018:42 |
| Timely exercise of discretion | Delays violate good governance | OKV/789/2019 (Chancellor) |
| Flexibility in emergencies | Discretion can adapt to crisis but within legal bounds | KHO:2021:15 |
VII. Conclusion
Discretion in granting social security benefits is necessary due to the variable nature of human circumstances, but it is bounded by principles of legality, fairness, equality, and reasonableness. Finnish courts and oversight bodies supervise discretionary decisions carefully, requiring transparency, justification, and consistency.
If discretion is abused or exercised arbitrarily, decisions may be annulled or criticized by courts or authorities such as the Chancellor of Justice or the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
RELATED Blog
0 comments