Finland vs Iceland in human rights administration
Finland vs. Iceland in Human Rights Administration
Both Finland and Iceland are Nordic countries with strong commitments to human rights, embedded in their constitutions, legislation, and membership in international bodies like the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, their administrative frameworks and jurisprudence show some differences in how human rights are administered and enforced.
1. Constitutional and Legal Frameworks
Finland: The Finnish Constitution explicitly guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms (Chapter 2), and these rights are directly enforceable. The Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) plays a key role in safeguarding rights in administrative matters. Finland is also subject to the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Iceland: Iceland’s Constitution protects fundamental rights and freedoms and incorporates the ECHR into its legal system. The Icelandic Supreme Court and administrative courts ensure human rights compliance in administrative decisions. Iceland also adheres to EU human rights standards despite not being an EU member.
Case Law Illustrating Human Rights Administration
Finland
1. KHO:2017:45 – National Security vs. Right to Information
Facts: Request for government documents was denied citing national security.
Holding: The Supreme Administrative Court upheld refusal but required that authorities provide sufficient justification balancing transparency and security.
Significance: Illustrates Finland’s approach to balancing state interests and individual rights, emphasizing proportionality and transparency.
2. KHO:2013:39 – Quarantine Measures and Right to Freedom
Facts: Quarantine order imposed on an individual suspected of contagious disease.
Holding: The Court upheld the measure as necessary and proportionate to protect public health, limiting individual freedom temporarily.
Significance: Demonstrates balancing individual rights against public interest in health emergencies.
3. European Court of Human Rights – Rantala v. Finland (2009)
Facts: Applicant claimed violation of the right to a fair trial due to administrative delay.
Holding: The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) due to undue delays.
Significance: Shows Finland’s adherence to international human rights standards and that domestic shortcomings can be remedied via international mechanisms.
Iceland
4. Supreme Court of Iceland – Case No. 2/2008 (Freedom of Expression and Defamation)
Facts: A journalist sued for defamation related to critical reports on public officials.
Holding: The court balanced freedom of expression against protection of reputation, ultimately favoring free speech with limits.
Significance: Shows Iceland’s strong protection of freedom of expression with nuanced balancing against other rights.
5. Hafsala Íslands hf v. Icelandic Data Protection Authority (2005)
Facts: Dispute over personal data use and privacy.
Holding: Icelandic authorities enforced strict data protection rules, supporting privacy rights under domestic law and the ECHR.
Significance: Demonstrates Iceland’s robust privacy protection in administrative decisions.
6. European Court of Human Rights – Jóhannesson v. Iceland (2017)
Facts: Challenge regarding administrative detention conditions violating Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment).
Holding: The ECtHR ruled that detention conditions violated human rights, requiring reform.
Significance: Highlights Iceland’s obligation to ensure humane treatment in administrative enforcement.
Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Finland | Iceland |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Rights | Explicit constitutional guarantees; KHO active in rights enforcement | Constitutional guarantees with Supreme Court oversight |
| Administrative Court Role | KHO plays major role in administrative human rights cases | Supreme Court and administrative bodies enforce rights |
| Balance of Rights vs. Public Interest | Strong emphasis on proportionality (e.g., health, security cases) | Similar balancing, especially in freedom of expression and privacy |
| International Human Rights | Adheres to ECHR with active ECtHR jurisprudence | Also adheres to ECHR, uses ECtHR decisions to reform practices |
| Notable Focus Areas | National security vs. openness, public health emergencies | Freedom of expression, privacy, humane treatment in detention |
Conclusion
Both countries have robust human rights frameworks rooted in their constitutions and international commitments.
Finland shows strong judicial review in administrative decisions with a particular focus on balancing state interests (security, health) and individual rights.
Iceland emphasizes protecting freedoms like expression and privacy while ensuring humane treatment, with active application of ECHR principles.
Both rely on European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence to supplement and guide domestic human rights enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments