Finland vs Norway: judicial review powers
Judicial Review in Finland vs Norway: Overview
Finland
Finland follows a parliamentary system where parliamentary sovereignty is somewhat balanced by constitutional supremacy.
The Finnish Constitution (1999) gives courts a limited power of judicial review, mainly focusing on statutory compatibility with the Constitution.
However, courts cannot strike down laws; instead, they may request the Parliament to reconsider legislation that conflicts with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament plays a key role in reviewing constitutionality during the legislative process.
Courts exercise concrete judicial review only when a case is before them, and there is no abstract review as in some countries.
Norway
Norway also has a parliamentary system with a strong emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty.
The Norwegian Constitution does not explicitly provide for judicial review, but courts have developed the practice of judicial review through case law.
Courts can declare laws invalid if they conflict with the Constitution, and this is regarded as part of their judicial function.
Norway follows a doctrine of constitutional supremacy, meaning the Constitution overrides ordinary statutes.
The Supreme Court plays a key role in judicial review.
Key Case Law Examples
Finland: Judicial Review Cases
1. KHO 1996:50 (Tax Act Case)
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) refused to apply a tax provision that was deemed unconstitutional.
This case showed that Finnish courts can refuse to apply laws conflicting with the Constitution, exercising a form of concrete judicial review.
However, the court did not annul the law; it simply avoided applying it in that specific case.
This case established that courts act as guardians of constitutional norms without nullifying legislation.
2. Supreme Court 2006:51 (Freedom of Expression Case)
The Finnish Supreme Court held that a law restricting freedom of expression violated the Constitution.
While courts cannot strike down laws, the judgment emphasized that courts should interpret statutes in conformity with constitutional rights.
The decision influenced Parliament to amend the law accordingly.
This case underlines the interpretive obligation of courts to uphold constitutional rights.
3. Constitutional Law Committee Opinions
While not court decisions, the Constitutional Law Committee’s role in reviewing bills during the legislative process ensures constitutional compliance.
Courts often defer to these opinions.
This highlights the Finnish system’s strong legislative control over constitutionality and limited judicial power.
Norway: Judicial Review Cases
4. Rt. 1952 s. 185 (the "Hospital Case")
The Norwegian Supreme Court held that a law authorizing compulsory hospital treatment was unconstitutional because it violated individual rights.
This was a landmark case establishing the Supreme Court's authority to invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution.
It firmly established the doctrine of constitutional supremacy in Norway and the judiciary’s power to conduct concrete judicial review.
5. Rt. 1997 s. 876 (Norwegian Penal Code Case)
The Supreme Court struck down a statutory provision on the grounds that it violated constitutional protections regarding criminal law principles (nullum crimen sine lege).
This case confirmed the Court’s willingness to scrutinize and invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution, even in sensitive policy areas.
It underscored the role of the judiciary as a constitutional guardian.
6. Rt. 2004 s. 1932 (Freedom of Religion Case)
The Court declared a law restricting religious symbols unconstitutional, reinforcing constitutional rights protections.
This case demonstrated the Court’s role in balancing parliamentary legislation with constitutional guarantees.
It affirmed the judiciary’s power to invalidate legislation conflicting with fundamental rights.
Summary Comparison
| Aspect | Finland | Norway |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Review Type | Concrete, limited judicial review | Concrete judicial review, more robust power |
| Power to Annul Laws | No, courts can refuse application only | Yes, courts can declare laws unconstitutional |
| Role of Legislature | Constitutional Law Committee key | Parliament is sovereign but courts check law |
| Judicial Role | Interpret statutes constitutionally; avoid unconstitutional application | Act as constitutional guardians with power to invalidate laws |
| Key Courts | Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court | Supreme Court |
RELATED Blog
0 comments