Procedural guarantees in licensing appeals
What are procedural guarantees in licensing appeals?
“Licensing appeals” refers broadly to appeals (administrative or judicial) against decisions granting or refusing a license (for example, professional licenses, building permits, environmental permits, etc.). Procedural guarantees are the protections that ensure fairness in those appeal processes. Key guarantees include:
Right to be heard / adversarial proceedings
Impartial and independent tribunal
Reasoned decisions
Access to evidence / disclosure
Oral hearing in appropriate cases
Timely proceedings
Right to appeal or effective remedy
Publicity of proceedings (in many cases)
Many of these are grounded in constitutional law, administrative law, and international human rights law (especially Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)).
Selected Cases Illustrating Procedural Guarantees in Licensing Appeals
Here are more than four prominent cases; some are Finnish (or involving Finland), others from ECHR / EU law. Each demonstrates one or more procedural guarantees in licensing or analogous appeal settings.
1. Toivanen v. Finland (ECtHR, Application No. 46131/19)
Facts: The applicant, a trial counsel whose licence was revoked by a disciplinary body (Board on Trial Counsel), appealed through the Finnish courts. The Court of Appeal, after an initial bench, transferred the case to an extended composition (more judges). The applicant claimed this transfer was unfair / that the judge who ordered it was biased. The applicant also appealed this in the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether the transfer to an extended composition, the impartiality of the judge making the transfer decision, and lack of an oral hearing (if any) violated Article 6 § 1 under the ECHR (fair hearing, impartial tribunal) in licensing (a kind of professional license) appeals.
Decision: The ECtHR held there was no violation of Article 6 in this case. Key findings:
Legislation was clear and accessible about when a case may be transferred to an extended composition.
Applicant had opportunity to participate fully, even after transfer; no loss of chance to present arguments.
The Supreme Court had full jurisdiction to examine the merits, including any defects/possible bias, and did so.
The judge’s role and the criteria for transfer were subject to scrutiny; no grounds were found for bias.
Procedural guarantees illustrated:
Impartial tribunal / oversight of transfer decisions
Clear legal basis for procedural rules
Opportunity to be heard / participate
Right to have higher court correct procedural defects
2. K.P. v. Finland (ECtHR, Application no. 31764/96, judgment 31 May 2001)
Facts: The applicant was appealing entitlement to continued disability allowance and various pensions. The Insurance Court (a specialist tribunal in Finland) obtained opinions ex officio from insurance companies and the Social Security Institution. These opinions were not communicated to the applicant, who argued that this deprived her of opportunity to comment.
Issue: Whether non‑communication of such ex officio obtained opinions violated Article 6 § 1 by denying her the right to be heard / fair hearing.
Decision: The Court found a violation.
The applicant should have been given access to those opinions so she could respond.
The fact that the court obtained evidence on its own initiative (opinions) which could affect its decision, triggered a duty to communicate them and allow the applicant to comment.
Guarantees illustrated:
Right to adversarial proceedings / hearing (to know and answer arguments and evidence used against you)
Duty of disclosure when court collects evidence on its own motion
3. P.K. v. Finland (sometimes same as K.P.) — but the same case as above; another angle: whether there was an oral hearing before Court of Appeal.
In that case, the applicant claimed the Court of Appeal refused an oral hearing (or that there was no oral hearing) and that this deprived him of fair hearing. The authorities referred to Finnish reservation under Article 6 for oral hearings in appeal proceedings; domestic law (Code of Judicial Procedure) allows oral hearing in some but not all cases. The ECHR examined whether the refusal was arbitrary or in breach of domestic law or the Convention. It found that the refusal was not arbitrary and that it was in accordance with law; thus no violation in that respect in that particular aspect.
4. Valkeajärvi v. Finland (ECHR, Application No. 34015/14)
Facts: Involves building permit and planning decisions: the applicant owned a house on inherited property. He had been granted a building permit to extend the house. Later he applied for communal aid, which was rejected on the ground the property was designated in the detailed plan as a holiday home, not a permanent dwelling.
Issue: The applicant complained about aspects of administrative procedure in how those decisions (and perhaps appeals) were handled.
Decision: The ECHR declared the application inadmissible in this case — meaning it did not proceed to a full merits decision under the Convention. The Court considered that the applicant did not show that his procedural rights under Article 6 were violated.
Though this case didn’t result in a finding of violation, it shows the threshold: applicants must show a real procedural defect in how licensing or permit decisions or appeals were handled.
5. Finnish domestic procedural changes / cases around environmental / building permits
While not always individual case judgments by ECHR, there are Finnish legal changes and judicial decisions that also illustrate procedural guarantees in licensing appeals.
Amendment effective December 2021: Registered associations (e.g. environmental, nature protection) acquired the right to appeal building permits in certain cases (when environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required). This expands who can access appeal procedures. Mondaq
Leave to appeal requirement expanded: As of 1 January 2018, for many environmental permit, zoning, building permit cases, a leave to appeal (permission) is required to bring the case to Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court. This is a filtering device but must itself respect procedural guarantees (fair grounds, predictable criteria). Roschier
Supreme Administrative Court decision KHO:2023:73: In wind turbine generator (WTG) licensing / permits, the Court held that key technical dimensions (e.g. rotor diameter, tip height, hub height) must be provided at application stage (i.e. clear, precise information). This ensures applicants know what is required; also helps in appeal processes because uncertainties or vagueness can lead to disputes over adequacy of information. Dittmar & Indrenius Attorneys Ltd.
6. Benthem v. Netherlands (ECHR, 1985)
Though not Finnish, this is a classic case about licensing and procedural guarantees under ECHR.
Facts: Benthem had a permit by a municipal authority in Netherlands. The permit was revoked by government decree. The procedure involved Kroonberoep (appeal to the Crown) and decisions by administrative bodies and Government. Benthem complained that revocation and appeal procedures lacked independence and impartiality / did not offer judicial review.
Decision: The ECHR held that Article 6 applies to licensing permits (civil rights & obligations) and that in this case the Kroonberoep procedure did violate the right to fair trial, because the appeal body wasn’t judicial, or not independent, etc.
Guarantees illustrated:
Licensing decisions are part of “civil rights & obligations” so fair hearing and judicial review required
Independence / impartial tribunal
Effective remedy
Key Lessons / Principles
From these and related cases, several principles emerge about what procedural guarantees must exist in licensing appeal processes:
Clear and accessible legal rules: The rules governing appeals (who can appeal, when, on what grounds, what composition of tribunal, etc.) must be predictable and transparent.
Right to be heard / adversarial procedure: Parties must have opportunity to know all material used — including evidence obtained ex officio (by the court) — and to respond. Non‑communication of opinions / evidence is a common cause of violation.
Impartial & independent tribunal / decision-making composition: If the procedure involves moving to larger bench or extended composition, or special disciplinary bodies, there must be reasoned decisions and protection from bias. If a judge is disqualified / impartiality is argued, that must be addressed.
Oral hearings when appropriate: Although not in all cases is there a guarantee of oral hearing, in many ECHR decisions whether an oral hearing is necessary depends on whether facts are disputed, seriousness of matter, etc. In licensing cases, especially when rights are deeply affected, oral hearings are often expected.
Reasoned decisions: Authorities must provide reasons for decisions, especially when rejecting appeals, or transferring to extended compositions, or making technical requirement assessments, etc.
Access to effective remedy / appeal: There must be possibility of judicial review, possibly through multiple levels, and appeal must not be blocked arbitrarily (for instance via overly narrow leave to appeal etc.).
Procedural equality / non‑discrimination: All persons affected must have similar rights to access appeal, including associations or third parties, as set out in recent Finnish changes (e.g. associations getting right to appeal in EIA‑subject building permits).
Timeliness, suspensive effect, interim relief (in some licensing/permit cases) so that appeals meaningfully protect rights, not just on paper.
Some Finnish Case Law Examples in More Detail
Because you asked for detail, here are some particular Finnish examples/cases or legal‑decisions that flesh out how procedural guarantees play out in licensing / permit cases or similar administrative licensing/disciplinary contexts.
Toivanen v. Finland (as above) — professional license revocation, appellate composition, bias, oral hearing etc.
K.P. v Finland — non‑communication of ex officio evidence in appeal about disability pension / allowances.
Finnish legislative changes expanding right to appeal building permits for associations — ensures access to remedy and equality among interested parties. (Amendment in Land Use and Building Act from Dec 2021) Mondaq
Supreme Administrative Court, KHO:2023:73 (wind turbine permits) — technical precision required in license/permit applications. This ties into procedural guarantee of clarity: licensee must know what is required, so appeals over ambiguity are limited. Also affects fairness: parties should not be surprised by requirements in appeal that were not clear at licensing stage. Dittmar & Indrenius Attorneys Ltd.
Also, more generally, Finnish Administrative Judicial Procedure Act prescribes rules for appeals (who is appellant, how appeals may be filed, what evidence/procedural steps are required), and domestic courts / administrative courts ensure that parties are informed of their right to appeal, and decisions must state how/where to appeal. WIPO+2e-justice.europa.eu+2
Possible Problem Areas / Violations (and how courts respond)
Lack of disclosure: If opinions, reports, or evidence obtained by the court or licensing authority are not shared with the appellant, that may violate the right to be heard (as in K.P. v Finland).
Lack of oral hearing: In appeals, under Finnish law courts have discretion; refusal may be acceptable if domestic law allows it and the case does not require it. But refusal must not be arbitrary, and must be in line with legal criteria. If law says right to hearing only in certain circumstances, the refusal must follow that. ECHR scrutinises whether applicant had real opportunity, whether facts were in dispute, whether the applicant asked, etc.
Biased / improper composition: If a judge is improperly part of appeal, or transfer to larger bench without clear criteria, or if that judge has role or relationship that raises bias, then procedural guarantees require correction (recusal etc.). In Toivanen, the bias claim was considered and rejected because no evidence of bias, criteria clear, and oversight existed.
Access to appeal / leave to appeal: If law requires permission to appeal (leave), that requirement must have clear criteria, not be arbitrary, and ensure that important errors or rights can still be reviewed.
Technical vagueness in licensing decisions: If the licensing authority gives vague or incomplete requirements or permit conditions, the licensee or third parties appealing may be prejudiced; domestic courts may require that applications/decisions are precise enough to allow meaningful appeal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments