Finland vs Japan: discretion and proportionality
Finland vs Japan: Discretion and Proportionality
I. Concepts Overview
1. Discretion in Administrative Law
Refers to the authority granted to public officials or agencies to make decisions within the bounds of law.
Necessary for flexibility, expertise, and efficiency in governance.
Subject to legal limits to prevent arbitrariness.
2. Proportionality Principle
A fundamental principle in administrative and constitutional law.
Ensures that any administrative measure or decision is:
Suitable to achieve a legitimate aim,
Necessary (no less restrictive alternative),
Reasonable/Proportionate in balancing benefits and burdens.
Protects citizens from excessive or unfair administrative actions.
II. Finland: Discretion and Proportionality in Case Law
Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, KHO 2015:58 (Social Housing Allocation)
Facts:
Municipality denied a vulnerable applicant social housing based on rigid criteria.
Issue:
Whether denial was an abuse of discretion and if it violated proportionality.
Ruling:
The court ruled that discretion must be exercised with consideration of individual circumstances.
The refusal was disproportionate as less restrictive alternatives (e.g., temporary housing) were not considered.
Principle:
Discretion must be reasonable and proportionate, not rigid or arbitrary.
Case 2: KHO 2017:23 (Environmental Permit Refusal)
Facts:
A company’s application for an environmental permit was refused due to potential risks.
Issue:
Was the refusal proportionate to the environmental harm prevented?
Ruling:
The court applied proportionality, weighing economic interests against environmental protection.
Found refusal justified as no less severe measure would adequately protect the environment.
Principle:
Proportionality allows balancing competing interests within administrative discretion.
Case 3: KHO 2014:12 (Tax Administration Penalty)
Facts:
Tax authority imposed a high penalty for late filing.
Issue:
Was the penalty disproportionate?
Ruling:
The court found the penalty excessive relative to the violation.
Ordered reduction based on proportionality principle.
Case 4: KHO 2011:63 (Planning and Zoning Decision)
Facts:
A zoning decision limited property use significantly.
Issue:
Whether the limitation was an abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
The court emphasized the need to balance public interest and individual rights.
Decision was upheld as proportionate because it met a legitimate public interest without undue burden.
Case 5: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2019:34 (Criminal Sentencing Discretion)
Facts:
Sentencing decision with consideration of mitigating circumstances.
Issue:
Whether sentencing discretion was applied proportionately.
Ruling:
Affirmed courts have discretion but must ensure punishments are proportionate to offenses.
III. Japan: Discretion and Proportionality in Case Law
Case 1: Supreme Court of Japan, 1973 (Keidanren Case)
Facts:
Ministry denied business association registration.
Issue:
Whether the denial was an abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
The court held discretion must be exercised reasonably and based on law.
Denial was disproportionate because no valid reason was provided.
Case 2: Supreme Court of Japan, 1984 (Environmental Regulation Case)
Facts:
Refusal to grant a construction permit due to pollution concerns.
Issue:
Was refusal proportionate?
Ruling:
Court weighed environmental protection vs. economic activity.
Decision upheld as proportionate.
Case 3: Tokyo High Court, 1998 (Tax Penalty Case)
Facts:
Tax penalty imposed on small business.
Issue:
Whether penalty was disproportionate.
Ruling:
Reduced penalty citing proportionality and fairness principles.
Case 4: Supreme Court of Japan, 2002 (Zoning Regulation Case)
Facts:
Local government restricted property use under zoning laws.
Issue:
Whether restriction was abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
Decision upheld, as it reasonably balanced public and private interests.
Case 5: Supreme Court of Japan, 2017 (Criminal Sentencing Discretion)
Facts:
Discretionary sentencing decision.
Issue:
Application of proportionality.
Ruling:
Court emphasized need for proportional sentencing considering circumstances.
IV. Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Finland | Japan |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis for Discretion | Administrative Procedure Act, Constitution | Administrative Procedure Act, Constitution |
| Emphasis on Proportionality | Strong constitutional underpinning, widely applied | Increasingly recognized, judicial enforcement evolving |
| Judicial Review | Active, with detailed balancing of interests | Active but generally deferential to administrative expertise |
| Transparency in Reasoning | Courts require clear reasoning from authorities | Courts often require legal basis but allow more discretion |
| Approach to Social Rights (housing, environment) | Strong protection through proportionality | Balances social and economic interests carefully |
V. Summary and Conclusion
Both Finland and Japan recognize discretion is essential in administration but must be bounded by proportionality.
Courts in both countries act as guardians against arbitrary or excessive decisions.
Finland has a somewhat stronger tradition of individualized proportionality analysis, particularly influenced by EU law.
Japan emphasizes reasonableness and legal basis, with proportionality gradually gaining more importance.
Both systems balance public interest and individual rights in nuanced ways.
RELATED Blog
0 comments