Investigation powers in maladministration cases
Investigation Powers in Maladministration Cases
1. Introduction
Maladministration refers to improper, inefficient, or illegal administration by public officials or authorities, such as corruption, abuse of power, neglect of duty, or procedural errors.
In Finland, various legal frameworks and institutions grant powers to investigate maladministration, primarily to ensure accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in public administration.
Key actors with investigative powers include:
Ombudsman (Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies)
Supreme Administrative Court (KHO)
Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI)
Police and prosecution authorities (in criminal maladministration)
2. Legal Basis for Investigation Powers
Constitution of Finland, Section 121: Citizens have the right to good administration and access to investigation of official misconduct.
Act on the Parliamentary Ombudsman (1956/558): Empowers the Ombudsman to investigate maladministration across all public authorities.
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003): Provides general rules on administrative investigations and rectifications.
Criminal Procedure Act: Applies where maladministration overlaps with crimes.
Act on the Regional State Administrative Agencies (896/2010): Supervisory and investigative roles.
3. Investigation Powers and Procedures
The Ombudsman can initiate investigations based on complaints or own initiative. It can request documents, question officials, and make binding recommendations.
Administrative courts, including KHO, can review maladministration through appeals and issue judgments that clarify standards.
Regional authorities conduct administrative supervision and may carry out inspections.
The police investigate if maladministration involves criminal acts (e.g., bribery).
4. Case Law Examples on Investigation Powers in Maladministration
Case 1: Ombudsman Decision 2012:21 – Investigative Authority Over Public Official’s Conduct
Facts:
A municipal official was alleged to have bypassed procurement rules.
Issue:
Does the Ombudsman have authority to investigate municipal officials' conduct?
Decision:
The Ombudsman affirmed broad jurisdiction, including local officials. The investigation confirmed procedural breaches.
Significance:
Ombudsman’s role extends to all levels of public administration.
Powers to collect evidence and request explanations are central.
Case 2: KHO 2005:48 – Judicial Review as Investigation Tool
Facts:
A company claimed maladministration in a licensing decision.
Issue:
Can judicial review serve as an investigative mechanism?
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court examined documents, questioned parties, and found procedural irregularities. The maladministration led to annulment.
Significance:
Judicial review incorporates an investigative function, not just a formal appeal.
Courts scrutinize facts and procedures to detect maladministration.
Case 3: Ombudsman Decision 2016:5 – Duty to Investigate Allegations of Corruption
Facts:
Complaint about suspected bribery in public procurement.
Issue:
Scope of Ombudsman’s powers to investigate suspected criminal maladministration.
Decision:
Ombudsman coordinated with police, conducting a parallel administrative investigation focusing on maladministration and recommending prosecution.
Significance:
Collaboration between Ombudsman and law enforcement is key.
Ombudsman focuses on administrative failings; police handle criminal investigation.
Case 4: KHO 2013:102 – Limits of Investigation When Documents Are Withheld
Facts:
A municipality refused to provide documents during maladministration investigation.
Issue:
Can authorities compel disclosure?
Decision:
KHO ruled that refusal violated transparency and supervision duties. Authorities must cooperate fully in maladministration investigations.
Significance:
Investigative powers include right to access relevant information.
Obstruction undermines rule of law.
Case 5: Ombudsman Decision 2019:12 – Investigation of Delay and Negligence
Facts:
Citizens complained about long delays in processing social benefits.
Issue:
Does the Ombudsman investigate administrative inefficiency?
Decision:
Ombudsman conducted investigation, found negligence, and issued recommendations for procedural improvements.
Significance:
Investigation includes service quality and timeliness.
Maladministration is broader than intentional misconduct.
Case 6: KHO 2017:29 – Investigation of Conflict of Interest
Facts:
An official made decisions benefiting a company linked to them.
Issue:
Can investigation powers be used to examine conflicts of interest?
Decision:
KHO annulled decisions, citing violation of impartiality rules. Investigation included detailed fact-finding.
Significance:
Investigation tools ensure ethical administration.
Courts actively review conflicts in public decision-making.
5. Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Investigative Power Exercised | Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ombudsman 2012:21 | Procurement breach | Document and personnel questioning | Maladministration found | Broad Ombudsman jurisdiction |
| KHO 2005:48 | Licensing decision review | Document and party examination | Annulment for maladministration | Judicial review as investigation |
| Ombudsman 2016:5 | Corruption suspicion | Coordinated admin and police probe | Referral to prosecution | Coordination with criminal authorities |
| KHO 2013:102 | Document withholding | Compulsion to disclose | Transparency enforced | Right to information |
| Ombudsman 2019:12 | Delay in service | Investigation of inefficiency | Recommendations made | Duty of good administration |
| KHO 2017:29 | Conflict of interest | Detailed fact-finding | Decisions annulled | Ethical standards enforcement |
6. Conclusion
Finnish law provides robust investigation powers to several actors to detect and correct maladministration. Key features include:
Wide jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and cooperation with police.
Judicial review functions as an investigative tool, ensuring legality and fairness.
Compulsory disclosure of information supports transparency.
Investigation covers corruption, negligence, conflicts of interest, and inefficiency.
These mechanisms promote accountability and trust in Finnish public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments