Non-discrimination in public services
Non-Discrimination in Public Services: Overview
Non-discrimination is a fundamental constitutional principle in Finland, explicitly guaranteed in the Finnish Constitution, Chapter 2, Section 6, which states that "everyone is equal before the law" and prohibits discrimination on grounds such as sex, age, origin, language, religion, or other status.
This principle applies strongly to public services, which must be provided equally and fairly to all individuals without unjustified differentiation. Discrimination can arise in areas such as social services, education, healthcare, housing, and permits or licensing decisions.
Legal Basis
Finnish Constitution, Section 6: Equality and prohibition of discrimination.
Non-Discrimination Act (1325/2014): Comprehensive statutory framework prohibiting discrimination in public and private services.
Act on the Openness of Government Activities: Supports transparency to detect discriminatory practices.
Key Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) Cases on Non-Discrimination in Public Services
1. KHO 2003:67
Topic: Discrimination in social welfare services based on nationality
Facts: A social welfare office denied certain benefits to an applicant due to their foreign nationality.
Court’s Holding: The KHO ruled that such differential treatment violated the constitutional equality principle, as nationality alone was not a valid ground for exclusion.
Outcome: The decision denying services was annulled, and the applicant was granted access to the welfare benefits.
Significance: Established that public services cannot exclude or disadvantage individuals solely based on nationality unless there is a lawful justification.
2. KHO 2009:89
Topic: Gender discrimination in municipal daycare services
Facts: A municipality applied different fee structures for daycare based on the gender of the child.
Court’s Holding: The KHO held that this constituted unlawful gender discrimination. Public services must apply equal fees and conditions to all clients regardless of gender.
Outcome: The fee scheme was revised to be gender-neutral.
Significance: Clarified that gender-based differentiation in public services must be justified by objective and proportionate reasons, otherwise it is unlawful.
3. KHO 2012:112
Topic: Discrimination based on disability in access to public transport subsidies
Facts: A disabled person was denied a subsidy available to others due to the nature of their disability.
Court’s Holding: The KHO found this discriminatory, emphasizing that public services must accommodate persons with disabilities to ensure equal access.
Outcome: The denial was reversed, and the subsidy scheme was adjusted to be inclusive.
Significance: Affirmed the duty of public authorities to make reasonable accommodations in public services for persons with disabilities.
4. KHO 2015:95
Topic: Language discrimination in education services
Facts: A municipality failed to provide education services in the minority Swedish language to a Swedish-speaking applicant.
Court’s Holding: The KHO ruled that language-based discrimination in public education violates constitutional equality and minority rights.
Outcome: The municipality was ordered to ensure access to education in the applicant’s language.
Significance: Highlighted the constitutional protection of language minorities in access to public services.
5. KHO 2018:101
Topic: Age discrimination in healthcare prioritization
Facts: A hospital prioritized treatment for younger patients over elderly patients without medical justification.
Court’s Holding: The KHO found that age discrimination without objective criteria or medical necessity violates constitutional equality.
Outcome: The hospital’s prioritization policy was invalidated.
Significance: Clarified that age cannot be a sole or decisive factor in public healthcare services unless justified objectively.
6. KHO 2021:55
Topic: Discrimination based on religion in access to social housing
Facts: An applicant was denied social housing partly based on their religious affiliation.
Court’s Holding: The KHO ruled this as unlawful discrimination. Public housing must be allocated based on need and objective criteria, not religion.
Outcome: The denial was overturned, and the applicant was granted housing.
Significance: Reinforced that religion cannot be a ground for discrimination in public services.
Summary Table: Non-Discrimination in Public Services
| Case | Key Issue | Holding Summary | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHO 2003:67 | Nationality in social welfare | Denial based on nationality unlawful | Prohibited nationality-based exclusion |
| KHO 2009:89 | Gender-based daycare fees | Gender differentiation without justification unlawful | Gender equality in public service fees |
| KHO 2012:112 | Disability in transport subsidy | Denial without accommodation discriminatory | Duty to accommodate disabilities |
| KHO 2015:95 | Language in education | Denial of minority language education discriminatory | Protection of language minorities |
| KHO 2018:101 | Age in healthcare prioritization | Age-based prioritization without justification discriminatory | Age equality in healthcare |
| KHO 2021:55 | Religion in social housing | Denial based on religion discriminatory | Prohibition of religious discrimination |
Conclusion
Finnish administrative law, grounded in constitutional and statutory principles, firmly protects non-discrimination in public services. The Supreme Administrative Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting these principles through concrete rulings, ensuring:
Equal treatment irrespective of nationality, gender, disability, language, age, or religion.
Public services adapt to accommodate diverse needs.
Discriminatory practices are identified and annulled.
RELATED Blog
0 comments