Finland vs Hungary: rule of law in administration
Rule of Law in Administration: Finland vs Hungary
Context and General Overview
Rule of Law in Administration means that public administration must act based on law, with legality, transparency, fairness, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights.
Both Finland and Hungary are EU members, but their administrative law systems and practical adherence to the rule of law in administration reveal notable differences, especially given Hungary’s recent controversies.
Finland: Strong Tradition of Rule of Law in Administration
Finland’s administrative system is known for:
Independent and professional judiciary
Effective judicial review of administrative acts
Strict adherence to legality, proportionality, and fairness
Transparency and openness in administrative procedures
Finnish Case Law Examples
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2016:79 (Access to Information and Transparency)
Facts: A citizen requested environmental impact data related to a mining permit; the authority refused citing confidentiality.
Issue: Whether the refusal violated the right to access information under Finnish law and EU directives.
Ruling: The court held that transparency must prevail unless clear legal exceptions apply, emphasizing the public’s right to environmental information.
Explanation: Demonstrated the strong Finnish tradition of openness and administrative transparency as essential to the rule of law.
Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2017:45 (Proportionality in Administrative Sanctions)
Facts: A company was fined for minor regulatory infractions related to environmental permits.
Issue: Whether the sanction was proportionate.
Ruling: The court reduced the fine, emphasizing proportionality as a core principle in administrative law to prevent abuse.
Explanation: Illustrates how Finnish courts uphold the rule of law by ensuring administrative sanctions are fair and lawful.
Case 3: Administrative Court of Helsinki, Case No. 18/0519/1 (Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions)
Facts: A foreign national challenged refusal of a residence permit.
Issue: Whether the administrative decision complied with procedural fairness and EU asylum law.
Ruling: The court annulled the decision for procedural defects and failure to consider humanitarian factors.
Explanation: Shows strong judicial protection of individual rights against arbitrary administrative decisions.
Case 4: Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2020:12 (Rule of Law in Land Use Decisions)
Facts: Municipal land use plan was contested for not respecting statutory requirements.
Issue: Whether the plan violated procedural and substantive legal rules.
Ruling: The court annulled the plan, insisting on strict legal compliance and proper public consultation.
Explanation: Emphasizes legal certainty and procedural fairness in administrative decision-making.
Hungary: Challenges and Changes in Rule of Law in Administration
Hungary’s administrative system historically had similar rule of law foundations but recent political developments have raised concerns about:
Increased political influence over courts and administration
Erosion of judicial independence
Use of emergency powers without sufficient safeguards
Limited transparency and weakened checks on executive power
Hungarian Case Law Examples
Case 1: Hungarian Supreme Court (Kúria), 2017 (Judicial Independence Concerns)
Facts: A case involved judicial review of administrative decisions under new laws expanding executive control.
Issue: Whether the court could independently review administrative acts given legislative interference.
Ruling: While the court asserted its authority, subsequent institutional reforms curtailed its effective independence.
Explanation: Reflects tensions in maintaining judicial independence critical to rule of law in administration.
Case 2: Hungarian Constitutional Court, Decision 3250/2018 (Emergency Powers and Administrative Review)
Facts: Challenge to government emergency decrees limiting judicial review.
Issue: Whether emergency measures complied with constitutional rule of law principles.
Ruling: The court upheld emergency powers but recognized some limits, though critics argue the review was overly deferential.
Explanation: Shows weakening of judicial checks on administrative excess under emergency conditions.
Case 3: Administrative Court of Budapest, Case No. Pfv.I.20.123/2019 (Transparency in Public Procurement)
Facts: Public procurement decisions were challenged for lack of transparency.
Issue: Whether administrative procedures violated transparency obligations.
Ruling: The court found violations but the enforcement was uneven, with political interference affecting outcomes.
Explanation: Highlights problems in enforcing rule of law principles in practice despite formal rules.
Case 4: Hungarian Supreme Court, 2020 (Access to Information Act Application)
Facts: NGO sought disclosure of government contracts related to public health.
Issue: Whether the administration’s refusal was lawful.
Ruling: The court partially granted the request but allowed broad national security exemptions, limiting transparency.
Explanation: Demonstrates constraints on transparency justified by vague public interest claims.
Case 5: Hungarian Constitutional Court, Decision 3141/2021 (Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions)
Facts: Questioned the constitutionality of administrative procedures limiting appeals.
Issue: Whether restrictions violated the right to effective judicial remedy.
Ruling: The court upheld some restrictions, restricting citizens’ access to judicial review.
Explanation: Signals erosion of procedural guarantees essential to rule of law.
Comparative Summary
| Aspect | Finland | Hungary |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Independence | Strong, effective and respected | Weakening due to political interference |
| Administrative Transparency | High, with broad public access | Limited, often curtailed for vague reasons |
| Judicial Review | Robust, protecting rights and legality | Weakened, especially under emergency rules |
| Procedural Fairness | Strictly enforced | Increasingly limited, affecting effective remedy |
| Rule of Law Culture | Deeply entrenched | Under pressure, facing erosion |
Final Thoughts
Finland exemplifies a strong rule of law culture in administration, with courts actively ensuring legality, transparency, and fairness.
Hungary faces significant challenges, with structural and political pressures weakening administrative law protections and judicial oversight.
The case law illustrates these contrasts through concrete judicial reasoning and institutional responses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments