Finland vs Germany: administrative court structures
1. Administrative Court Structures: Finland vs Germany
Finland
Structure:
Administrative Courts (Hallinto-oikeudet): There are regional administrative courts (usually one per province), acting as first-instance courts for administrative cases.
Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus): The highest authority in administrative law, hearing appeals from the regional administrative courts.
Role: These courts handle disputes between individuals and public authorities concerning decisions made by government agencies, municipalities, and other public entities.
Judges: Professional judges; no juries.
Key Features:
Finnish administrative courts review decisions for legality and sometimes merits.
The system emphasizes legality and fairness in public administration.
Appeals are limited by leave-to-appeal procedures to ensure only significant cases proceed.
Germany
Structure:
Administrative Courts (Verwaltungsgerichte): First-instance courts handling disputes between citizens and administrative authorities.
Higher Administrative Courts (Oberverwaltungsgerichte or Verwaltungsgerichtshöfe): Second-instance courts that review first-instance decisions.
Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht): The highest court for administrative law at the federal level.
Specialized Administrative Courts: Some areas (like social security, taxation) have specialized courts.
Judges: Professional judges; no jury trials in administrative courts.
Key Features:
German administrative courts have a more layered structure with three levels.
The system strongly protects constitutional rights and checks administrative discretion.
Appeals generally go through all three levels unless specific exceptions apply.
2. Detailed Case Law Examples from Finland
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2017:54
Issue: Appeal against a municipal decision on land use planning.
Explanation: The court ruled that the municipality’s refusal to grant a building permit was lawful, emphasizing the importance of following strict environmental and land-use regulations. The court examined the municipality’s discretion in balancing environmental concerns and development interests. This case highlights how Finnish administrative courts carefully review both the legality and reasonableness of administrative decisions.
Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2019:89
Issue: Immigration appeal concerning refusal of residence permit.
Explanation: The court analyzed whether the immigration authority’s decision was proportional and lawful under Finnish law and EU directives. It confirmed the right to a fair hearing and detailed the procedural requirements administrative bodies must follow in sensitive cases involving fundamental rights.
Case 3: Administrative Court of Helsinki, 18/0293/1
Issue: Challenge to a tax authority’s decision on value-added tax (VAT) refund.
Explanation: The court found that the tax authority had made a procedural error by failing to provide adequate reasoning. The decision was annulled, reinforcing the principle that administrative decisions must be transparent and well-grounded in law.
Case 4: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2020:108
Issue: Dispute over social welfare benefits denial.
Explanation: The court upheld the denial, noting that the applicant failed to meet specific statutory criteria. This case demonstrated the administrative court’s role in strictly interpreting welfare laws, balancing state resource management and individual rights.
Case 5: Administrative Court of Vaasa, 18/0248/1
Issue: Appeal against environmental authority’s fine for water pollution.
Explanation: The court reduced the fine, considering mitigating factors and proportionality principles, showing courts' role in moderating administrative sanctions.
3. Detailed Case Law Examples from Germany
Case 1: Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG), 7 C 30.12 (2013)
Issue: Appeal concerning a building permit refusal due to heritage protection laws.
Explanation: The court ruled that the local authority’s refusal was justified, emphasizing the importance of protecting cultural heritage. The case clarifies the balance between private property rights and public interest in heritage protection.
Case 2: Federal Administrative Court, BVerwG 6 C 22.16 (2017)
Issue: Challenge to administrative sanctions against a company for environmental violations.
Explanation: The court upheld the sanctions but required the administrative agency to provide more detailed justification for the penalty calculation, reinforcing procedural fairness in administrative enforcement.
Case 3: Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, 9 B 10.18
Issue: Dispute about refugee status recognition.
Explanation: The court emphasized the necessity of a thorough examination of asylum claims and the protection of fundamental rights under German Basic Law, reflecting the courts’ role in safeguarding human rights in administrative decisions.
Case 4: Administrative Court of Munich, M 12 K 18.2040
Issue: Appeal against a public health order during a pandemic.
Explanation: The court upheld the administrative order restricting gatherings, highlighting the importance of administrative discretion during public emergencies and balancing public safety with individual freedoms.
Case 5: Federal Administrative Court, BVerwG 10 C 4.19
Issue: Taxation dispute concerning municipal business tax assessment.
Explanation: The court found that the municipality correctly applied tax law and rejected the taxpayer's appeal. This case illustrates the administrative courts’ role in overseeing complex tax assessments and ensuring lawful administration.
Summary
Finnish administrative courts focus on legality, procedural fairness, and proportionality, often in social welfare, immigration, land use, and taxation cases.
German administrative courts have a more tiered structure and play a strong role in constitutional rights protection, environmental law, public health, taxation, and refugee law.
Both systems provide detailed judicial review of administrative actions, emphasizing legality, proportionality, and procedural fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments