Preliminary references by Finnish administrative courts
Preliminary References by Finnish Administrative Courts
1. Introduction to Preliminary References
Preliminary references are a judicial mechanism primarily designed for courts to request interpretative guidance on points of EU law or sometimes constitutional issues from higher courts or the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
In Finland, preliminary references serve as a crucial tool to ensure:
Uniform interpretation of EU law
Proper application of constitutional norms
Dialogue between national courts and EU institutions
Although preliminary references are most commonly associated with national courts referring questions to the ECJ, Finnish administrative courts (especially the Supreme Administrative Court, Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) also engage in internal references or escalate to the ECJ.
2. Legal Framework
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 267: Empowers courts to refer preliminary questions to the ECJ.
Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (2003/586): Provides rules on administrative court procedures.
Finnish Constitution (Section 106): Supports courts in constitutional review and dialogue with the ECJ.
Court Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Administrative Court: Internal guidelines on references.
3. Role of Finnish Administrative Courts in Preliminary References
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) is the highest Finnish administrative court and can make preliminary references to the ECJ on questions of EU law arising in administrative cases.
Lower administrative courts can seek guidance through appeals or advisory opinions.
Preliminary references often arise in areas like competition law, environmental regulation, taxation, social security, and immigration.
4. Case Law Examples on Preliminary References
Case 1: KHO 2013:54 – VAT Deduction and EU Law Interpretation
Facts:
A Finnish company challenged a tax authority decision denying VAT deduction on certain services.
Legal Issue:
Whether the Finnish tax law provision complied with EU VAT Directive rules.
KHO Action:
Referred a preliminary question to the ECJ regarding the interpretation of VAT deduction rules under EU law.
ECJ Outcome:
The ECJ clarified the scope of deductible VAT, leading KHO to annul the tax decision.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ role in referring complex EU law issues.
Ensures uniform application of EU law in Finland.
Case 2: KHO 2011:72 – Environmental Permit and EU Habitats Directive
Facts:
Dispute over an environmental permit issued without full assessment of protected species impact.
Legal Issue:
Compliance with EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).
KHO Action:
Requested a preliminary ruling from the ECJ on the interpretation of “appropriate assessment”.
ECJ Outcome:
ECJ provided guidance, influencing KHO’s decision to annul the permit.
Significance:
Highlights the use of preliminary references in environmental law.
Shows interplay between national administrative courts and EU institutions.
Case 3: KHO 2009:45 – Social Security Coordination and EU Regulation
Facts:
A social security dispute involving cross-border worker rights under EU Regulation 883/2004.
Legal Issue:
How to interpret provisions on benefit entitlements for cross-border workers.
KHO Action:
Made a preliminary reference to ECJ to clarify application of EU social security coordination rules.
ECJ Outcome:
ECJ’s ruling provided detailed criteria, allowing KHO to make a final decision.
Significance:
Shows Finnish courts using preliminary references to handle complex cross-border administrative issues.
Case 4: KHO 2017:101 – Immigration Detention and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Facts:
Question on legality of detention conditions for an asylum seeker.
Legal Issue:
Compatibility of Finnish detention practices with the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.
KHO Action:
Referred preliminary questions to ECJ regarding the rights of asylum seekers.
ECJ Outcome:
Clarified minimum standards for detention, influencing KHO to order review of detention conditions.
Significance:
Demonstrates use of preliminary references to protect fundamental rights in administrative processes.
Case 5: KHO 2015:89 – Public Procurement and EU Directives
Facts:
A dispute over public procurement procedure allegedly violating EU rules.
Legal Issue:
Interpretation of EU Public Procurement Directive provisions.
KHO Action:
Preliminary reference made to ECJ.
ECJ Outcome:
ECJ’s interpretation led to annulment of the contract award by KHO.
Significance:
Highlights role of preliminary references in ensuring compliance with EU internal market law.
Case 6: KHO 2020:15 – Data Protection in Administrative Procedure
Facts:
A challenge on administrative use of personal data under GDPR.
Legal Issue:
Interpretation of GDPR provisions on data processing by public authorities.
KHO Action:
Referred preliminary question to the ECJ for clarification.
ECJ Outcome:
Provided binding interpretation, KHO applied it to administrative case.
Significance:
Shows how Finnish courts use preliminary references to navigate evolving EU data protection rules.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Area | Legal Issue | Court Action | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KHO 2013:54 | Taxation | VAT deduction interpretation | Preliminary reference to ECJ | Ensured VAT law compliance |
| KHO 2011:72 | Environmental law | Habitats Directive assessment | Preliminary reference to ECJ | Enhanced environmental protection |
| KHO 2009:45 | Social security | Cross-border worker benefits | Preliminary reference to ECJ | Clarified benefit entitlements |
| KHO 2017:101 | Immigration law | Detention conditions | Preliminary reference to ECJ | Strengthened fundamental rights |
| KHO 2015:89 | Public procurement | Directive compliance | Preliminary reference to ECJ | Ensured fair procurement |
| KHO 2020:15 | Data protection | GDPR interpretation | Preliminary reference to ECJ | Updated administrative data use |
6. Conclusion
Finnish administrative courts, especially the Supreme Administrative Court, actively use preliminary references to the ECJ to ensure correct interpretation of EU law.
Preliminary references serve as a bridge between Finnish law and EU law, ensuring Finland's compliance with EU obligations.
They are used in a wide range of fields: tax, environment, social security, immigration, procurement, and data protection.
This mechanism helps maintain legal certainty, harmonization, and protection of fundamental rights in administrative matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments