Finland vs Italy: judicial activism in administrative law
Judicial Activism in Administrative Law: Finland vs Italy
Judicial activism refers to courts taking an active role in shaping the law, sometimes going beyond strict statutory interpretation to enforce broader principles of justice, fairness, or policy objectives. In administrative law, this often means courts reviewing administrative decisions with a more substantive approach, intervening when public authorities’ decisions appear unreasonable or violate fundamental rights.
Finland: Judicial Activism in Administrative Law
In Finland, administrative law courts traditionally take a more restrained and formalistic approach, but there are notable instances of activism where courts protect fundamental rights and demand high standards of administrative fairness and proportionality.
Key themes in Finnish judicial activism:
Protection of fundamental rights in administrative decisions.
Review of proportionality and reasonableness.
Ensuring transparency and procedural fairness.
Important Finnish Cases
1. KHO: Case 2001:16 (Supreme Administrative Court - Environmental Permit)
Facts: The case concerned a decision granting an environmental permit with contested conditions.
Judgment: The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) invalidated the permit conditions for not sufficiently protecting environmental interests.
Activism Aspect: The Court engaged in a detailed proportionality review, emphasizing environmental protection over administrative convenience.
Significance: Illustrates Finland’s courts actively balancing environmental interests and administrative discretion, beyond mere procedural compliance.
2. KHO 2006:63 (Supreme Administrative Court - Right to be Heard)
Facts: A local authority issued a decision without properly notifying interested parties.
Judgment: The SAC annulled the decision due to violation of the right to be heard, a fundamental procedural principle.
Activism Aspect: The Court reinforced procedural rights robustly, ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative processes.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts are vigilant in enforcing procedural fairness, not hesitating to overturn administrative decisions violating basic rights.
3. KHO 2012:68 (Supreme Administrative Court - Discretionary Power Review)
Facts: The case dealt with social benefits denied by an authority.
Judgment: The Court intervened, ruling the denial was disproportionate and arbitrary.
Activism Aspect: The Court performed a substantive review of the discretionary power, demanding fairness and proportionality.
Significance: Reflects an activist trend to protect vulnerable individuals against administrative arbitrariness.
Italy: Judicial Activism in Administrative Law
Italian administrative law is traditionally highly formalistic and procedural, but Italian courts, especially the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), have demonstrated significant judicial activism in several areas, particularly in protecting constitutional rights and enforcing the principle of proportionality.
Key themes in Italian judicial activism:
Strong protection of constitutional rights against administrative action.
Detailed review of discretionary powers for abuse or excess.
Balancing public interest and individual rights.
Proportionality principle as a tool for substantive review.
Important Italian Cases
1. Consiglio di Stato, Section VI, Judgment 26/1996 (Proportionality in Zoning Laws)
Facts: A municipal zoning plan restricted property rights.
Judgment: The Court annulled zoning restrictions as disproportionate.
Activism Aspect: Extensive use of proportionality review, weighing public interest against private rights.
Significance: Landmark case establishing judicial activism in controlling administrative discretion on constitutional grounds.
2. Consiglio di Stato, Judgment 247/2006 (Public Procurement and Transparency)
Facts: Challenge against an award of a public contract with insufficient transparency.
Judgment: The Court annulled the contract award due to failure to respect transparency and equal treatment.
Activism Aspect: The Court actively enforced administrative fairness principles, stepping into procedural details.
Significance: Shows Italian courts' readiness to protect procedural principles rigorously.
3. Consiglio di Stato, Judgment 5526/2012 (Protection of Environmental Rights)
Facts: Environmental groups challenged an administrative authorization granted without proper assessment.
Judgment: The Court annulled the authorization for insufficient environmental impact evaluation.
Activism Aspect: Courts enforced substantive environmental rights protection, going beyond formalities.
Significance: Judicial activism in safeguarding public and environmental interests against administrative lapses.
4. Consiglio di Stato, Judgment 578/2015 (Social Welfare Benefits)
Facts: Denial of social welfare benefits.
Judgment: The Court reversed the administrative decision for lack of proper evaluation of claimant’s situation.
Activism Aspect: Judicial intervention ensured substantive justice and fairness, applying proportionality.
Significance: Activism in protecting social rights against administrative discretion.
Comparative Summary Table
| Aspect | Finland | Italy |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial approach | Generally restrained but substantive in rights protection | More activist in constitutional and procedural review |
| Key review tools | Proportionality, fundamental rights, procedural fairness | Proportionality, abuse of discretion, constitutional safeguards |
| Example focus areas | Environmental law, procedural rights, social benefits | Zoning, public procurement, environment, social welfare |
| Notable courts | Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) | Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) |
| Degree of activism | Moderate but growing | Strong and well-established |
Conclusion
Finland’s courts exhibit moderate judicial activism, mainly in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring proportionality, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Italy’s administrative courts show a higher degree of judicial activism, particularly through constitutional rights protection, substantive proportionality review, and enforcement of administrative transparency and fairness.
Both countries illustrate different judicial cultures but increasingly use activism to control administrative power and protect citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments