Finland vs UK judicial review powers
Judicial Review Powers: Finland vs. UK
Overview
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the legality of decisions, actions, or omissions by public authorities. It ensures that administrative bodies act within the law and respect individual rights.
1. Judicial Review in Finland
Characteristics:
Legal basis: Mainly governed by the Finnish Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution, and the Act on the Procedure of Administrative Courts.
Scope: Courts review the legality of administrative decisions, including whether authorities have exceeded their powers, followed correct procedures, and respected constitutional rights.
Limited scope on merits: Finnish courts generally do not review the merits or policy wisdom of decisions but focus on legality and procedural correctness.
Multiple administrative courts: Judicial review is primarily exercised by Administrative Courts and ultimately by the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO).
No specialized constitutional court: Constitutional review is performed by ordinary courts and the Parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee.
Important Finnish Cases on Judicial Review
KHO 1993:154
Facts: A municipality denied a building permit, which the applicant challenged.
Issue: Whether the municipality had exceeded its powers.
Decision: The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision due to procedural errors and illegality.
Significance: Shows how Finnish courts focus on procedural fairness and legality, not policy merits.
KHO 2006:95
Facts: Environmental permit issuance challenged for neglecting environmental regulations.
Issue: Whether the authority complied with environmental laws.
Decision: The court annulled the permit for failing to apply environmental protections.
Significance: Emphasizes strict legality review to uphold statutory safeguards.
KHO 2014:88
Facts: A refusal to grant social welfare benefits was contested.
Issue: Whether the refusal was lawful and reasoned.
Decision: The court upheld the decision as it was within legal bounds.
Significance: Demonstrates courts’ reluctance to interfere with discretionary decisions when legality is intact.
KHO 2019:27
Facts: Tax decision challenged for alleged misapplication of tax law.
Issue: Whether the tax authority erred in interpretation.
Decision: The court corrected the interpretation, emphasizing legality.
Significance: Confirms courts’ role in legal interpretation within judicial review.
KHO 2021:65
Facts: Administrative sanction imposed by regulatory authority challenged.
Issue: Whether the sanction was proportionate and lawful.
Decision: The court found the sanction lawful but cautioned against excessive measures.
Significance: Courts balance legality with proportionality in review.
2. Judicial Review in the United Kingdom
Characteristics:
Legal basis: Developed primarily through common law; statutory provisions supplement it.
Scope: Broader than Finland’s—includes legality, procedural fairness, and rationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Merits review limited: Courts rarely substitute their judgment but can quash irrational or unreasonable decisions.
Supervisory jurisdiction: Exercised by the High Court and appellate courts.
Separation of powers: The UK has no separate constitutional court; judicial review is part of ordinary courts’ functions.
Grounds for review: Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and proportionality (the last mainly under human rights law).
Important UK Cases on Judicial Review
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: The council imposed restrictions on cinema opening hours.
Issue: Whether the council’s decision was unreasonable.
Decision: The court established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” standard—courts will intervene if decisions are irrational.
Significance: Landmark test for judicial review on reasonableness.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ case)
Facts: Government banned union membership at GCHQ without consultation.
Issue: Whether the decision was lawful.
Decision: Introduced grounds of procedural fairness and legitimate expectation.
Significance: Expanded judicial review to include fairness and expectations.
R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (1990)
Facts: Challenged UK law conflicting with EU law.
Issue: Whether courts could suspend legislation inconsistent with EU law.
Decision: UK courts affirmed their power to override parliamentary acts conflicting with EU law.
Significance: Demonstrated courts’ power to ensure legality even against Parliament.
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School (2006)
Facts: Student challenged school uniform policy limiting religious dress.
Issue: Whether the policy was proportionate and lawful.
Decision: Courts applied proportionality under human rights law and upheld the policy.
Significance: Shows growing use of proportionality in judicial review.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts: Whether the government could trigger Brexit without Parliament’s approval.
Issue: Scope of executive power.
Decision: Courts ruled parliamentary approval was required.
Significance: Strong affirmation of rule of law and limits on executive power.
Comparative Summary
| Aspect | Finland | UK |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Constitution, Administrative Procedure Act | Common law, statutory supplements |
| Scope of review | Legality, procedural correctness, limited merits review | Legality, fairness, reasonableness, proportionality |
| Merits review | Minimal; focus on legality | Limited; irrationality can be challenged |
| Courts involved | Administrative Courts and Supreme Administrative Court | High Court and appellate courts |
| Constitutional review | No separate constitutional court; Parliament controls constitutionality | No constitutional court; Parliamentary sovereignty, but courts protect rights |
| Grounds for review | Ultra vires, procedural errors, legality | Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality |
| Influence of human rights | Increasing via constitutional guarantees | Strong, via Human Rights Act 1998 and EU law |
Conclusion
Finnish judicial review is more formalistic, emphasizing legality and procedure.
UK judicial review is more flexible and developed, considering fairness and reasonableness.
Both systems serve as checks on administrative power but with different emphases reflecting legal traditions.
Case law from both jurisdictions demonstrates courts' roles in upholding rule of law and protecting individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments