Finland vs UK: parliamentary vs judicial oversight
Overview: Parliamentary vs Judicial Oversight
Parliamentary oversight refers to the mechanisms by which the legislative body supervises the executive branch and government actions to ensure accountability, legality, and transparency.
Judicial oversight involves courts reviewing the legality and constitutionality of government actions and laws, often through judicial review or constitutional courts.
Finland vs UK: Parliamentary Oversight
Finland
Finland has a parliamentary democracy where Eduskunta (Parliament) holds strong oversight powers.
Parliamentary oversight is exercised through committees, questioning ministers, motions of no confidence, and control of government finances.
Finland’s Constitution (especially the Constitution Act 731/1999) outlines the rights of Parliament to oversee the government.
UK
The UK Parliament exercises oversight mainly through select committees, question sessions (Prime Minister’s Questions), debates, and financial scrutiny.
The UK’s uncodified constitution relies heavily on parliamentary sovereignty and conventions rather than a written constitution.
Parliamentary oversight is very strong due to sovereignty but relies on political accountability rather than judicial intervention.
Finland vs UK: Judicial Oversight
Finland
Finland has strong judicial oversight through the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament.
Courts can review the constitutionality of laws before they are enacted (via the Constitutional Law Committee), but no separate Constitutional Court exists.
The Supreme Court can annul administrative acts that violate the law.
UK
Judicial oversight in the UK has increased post-1998 with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the creation of the Supreme Court (2009).
UK courts do not have full power to strike down primary legislation (due to parliamentary sovereignty).
Courts can issue declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act or review secondary legislation for legality.
Case Law Examples
Finland Case Law
1. Supreme Court Decision on Parliamentary Immunity (KKO 2003:12)
Issue: A Member of Parliament was prosecuted while Parliament was in session.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that MPs have immunity during sessions to safeguard parliamentary independence.
Significance: Shows parliamentary oversight protecting legislative function; judicial intervention respects parliamentary privilege.
2. Supreme Administrative Court, Case on Government Decree (KHO 2006:61)
Issue: Legality of a government decree on environmental permits.
Outcome: The court annulled the decree due to violation of the Environmental Protection Act.
Significance: Demonstrates judicial oversight ensuring executive acts comply with law.
3. Parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee on Security Laws (1993)
Issue: Review of the constitutionality of new security legislation.
Outcome: The Committee issued a report confirming compliance but emphasizing limits on executive power.
Significance: Illustrates Finland’s practice of parliamentary pre-enactment judicial review.
4. Supreme Court on Freedom of Speech vs Defamation (KKO 2015:58)
Issue: Balancing parliamentary freedom of speech and legal limits.
Outcome: Court upheld parliamentary speech immunity in debates but allowed defamation claims outside Parliament.
Significance: Judicial respect for parliamentary oversight balanced with individual rights.
UK Case Law
1. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5
Issue: Whether the government could trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval.
Outcome: Supreme Court held that an act of Parliament was required.
Significance: Judicial oversight upheld parliamentary sovereignty, reinforcing parliamentary oversight over the executive.
2. R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56
Issue: Legality of the Parliament Act 1949, which allowed legislation without the House of Lords.
Outcome: Law Lords held the Act valid but acknowledged limits on parliamentary sovereignty.
Significance: Illustrates judicial engagement with constitutional boundaries, albeit respecting parliamentary sovereignty.
3. R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21
Issue: Government refusal to release Prince Charles' letters under Freedom of Information.
Outcome: Supreme Court ordered release, ruling government minister’s veto unlawful.
Significance: Shows judicial oversight enforcing transparency and limits on executive power.
4. R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22
Issue: Judicial reviewability of decisions by a tribunal overseeing intelligence services.
Outcome: Supreme Court allowed judicial review, limiting executive secrecy.
Significance: Expansion of judicial oversight even over sensitive national security matters.
5. R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
Issue: Legality of fees imposed on employment tribunals.
Outcome: Supreme Court struck down fees as unlawful, emphasizing access to justice.
Significance: Judicial oversight protects constitutional principles even when Parliament enacts legislation.
Summary: Key Differences
| Aspect | Finland | UK |
|---|---|---|
| Parliamentary Oversight | Strong, constitutionally guaranteed; Committee reviews laws pre-enactment | Strong, based on sovereignty and political mechanisms |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts have power to annul executive acts; no separate Constitutional Court, but Parliament’s Constitutional Committee reviews laws | Courts can review legality and rights but not strike down primary legislation |
| Role of Constitution | Written Constitution ensures parliamentary and judicial oversight | Uncodified constitution, relying on conventions and statutes |
| Case Law Emphasis | Balances parliamentary sovereignty with rule of law; judicial review of decrees | Judicial review upholds parliamentary sovereignty; Human Rights Act introduces rights protection |
RELATED Blog
0 comments