Requirement to maintain impartiality
Requirement to Maintain Impartiality
What is Impartiality?
Impartiality means that administrative authorities and officials must act without bias, favoritism, or prejudice in the exercise of their official duties. This principle is essential for ensuring fairness, trust in public administration, and the protection of the rights of individuals.
Legal Basis
Constitution of Finland (Section 21) guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) mandates impartiality and objectivity in official decision-making.
The General Principles of Finnish Administrative Law emphasize that decisions must be made based on facts and law, free from personal or external influences.
Impartiality Applies To
Decision-makers in administrative bodies.
Supervisory authorities.
Agencies involved in enforcement.
Officials with conflicts of interest or personal relationships with parties.
Forms of Violation
Conflict of interest: When the decision-maker has personal, financial, or other interests that could bias their judgment.
Prejudice or favoritism: Favoring or disfavoring parties unfairly.
Lack of objective evaluation: Making decisions based on improper considerations.
Consequences of Breach
The administrative decision may be annulled.
The official may face disciplinary measures.
Trust in administration is undermined.
Case Law Illustrating the Requirement to Maintain Impartiality
1. Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) 1983:50
Facts: An official participated in decision-making in a matter involving a close relative.
Ruling: The SAC ruled that the official’s participation violated the impartiality requirement, and the decision was annulled.
Significance: Established that close personal relationships create a conflict of interest that undermines impartiality.
2. SAC 1991:25 (Bias Due to Prior Public Statements)
Facts: A municipal official had publicly expressed strong opinions on an ongoing administrative case.
Ruling: The SAC held that such public statements compromised the official’s impartiality, making fair decision-making impossible.
Significance: Clarified that impartiality extends to pre-decision conduct affecting perceived neutrality.
3. SAC 2000:12 (Impartiality in Licensing Decisions)
Facts: A licensing official had financial interests in a company affected by the licensing decision.
Ruling: The SAC annulled the license, emphasizing that financial interests by officials create unacceptable conflicts of interest.
Significance: Reinforced strict standards against economic conflicts in administrative decision-making.
4. SAC 2008:18 (Impartiality in Procurement Procedures)
Facts: An official involved in a public procurement process had a prior business relationship with one bidder.
Ruling: The SAC found that the official’s impartiality was compromised, leading to annulment of the procurement decision.
Significance: Highlighted the need for transparent, impartial procedures in public procurement.
5. SAC 2013:35 (Impartiality in Social Welfare Decisions)
Facts: A social welfare official had previously advocated for a party involved in the case.
Ruling: The SAC held that advocacy work did not automatically violate impartiality but required careful assessment of whether the official could remain neutral.
Significance: Shows the nuanced approach in determining when prior conduct affects impartiality.
6. SAC 2017:14 (Appearance of Impartiality)
Facts: The issue was whether an official’s impartiality was compromised merely by the appearance of bias, even without actual bias.
Ruling: The SAC emphasized that maintaining public confidence requires not only actual impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality.
Significance: Broadens the scope of impartiality to include avoiding situations that might reasonably cause doubts about neutrality.
Summary
Impartiality is a fundamental requirement in Finnish administrative law, ensuring fair and unbiased decision-making.
The principle covers actual bias, conflicts of interest, and appearance of bias.
Finnish courts, particularly the Supreme Administrative Court, have consistently annulled decisions where impartiality is compromised.
The requirement protects equality, fairness, and trust in public administration.
Courts assess impartiality based on facts, relationships, conduct, and potential conflicts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments