Scope of administrative discretion in Finnish law
Scope of Administrative Discretion in Finnish Law
Overview of Administrative Discretion
Administrative discretion in Finnish law refers to the authority granted to public officials or administrative bodies to make decisions within a framework set by law, based on their judgment and assessment of facts and circumstances.
Discretion allows flexibility to adapt legal rules to complex and diverse real-life situations.
However, it is not unlimited — discretion must be exercised within legal boundaries, principles of good administration, and constitutional rights.
Legal Framework Governing Administrative Discretion
Legality Principle: Discretion must be based on a clear legal mandate.
Purpose Principle: Discretion should be exercised in pursuit of the objective intended by the law.
Proportionality: Decisions must be proportionate to the aim pursued.
Reasonableness: Decisions must not be arbitrary and should reflect rational judgment.
Equality: Similar cases must be treated alike unless objective grounds justify different treatment.
Right to be heard: Affected parties must be given an opportunity to present their views before a discretionary decision is made.
Key Finnish Case Law on Administrative Discretion
1. KHO:1975:85 (Supreme Administrative Court 1975, Case 85)
Facts: An authority denied a permit based on discretionary powers.
Issue: Whether the discretion was exercised lawfully.
Ruling: The SAC ruled that discretion must be grounded in law and exercised according to the law’s purpose. It emphasized that discretion cannot be used arbitrarily or for purposes other than those intended by the legislature.
Significance: Established the foundation that discretion is bound by legality and purpose.
2. KHO:1990:73 (Supreme Administrative Court 1990, Case 73)
Facts: A social welfare official exercised discretion in deciding eligibility for benefits.
Issue: Whether the discretion was applied consistently and fairly.
Ruling: The Court stressed the principle of equality in discretion, requiring similar cases to be treated similarly. It ruled that decisions must be justified and consistent with prior practice unless there is a good reason for deviation.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of non-arbitrariness and equal treatment in discretionary decisions.
3. KHO:2001:98 (Supreme Administrative Court 2001, Case 98)
Facts: A zoning authority made a discretionary decision on land use restrictions.
Issue: Whether the discretion was proportional and reasonable.
Ruling: The Court held that discretion should not produce unreasonable or disproportionate outcomes. Decisions must be balanced, taking into account interests of individuals and community.
Significance: Highlighted the principle of proportionality and reasonableness as limits on discretion.
4. KHO:2008:67 (Supreme Administrative Court 2008, Case 67)
Facts: An administrative agency’s decision was challenged on the grounds that it failed to properly consider the applicant’s hearing.
Issue: Whether the right to be heard was respected in discretionary decision-making.
Ruling: The Court emphasized that before exercising discretion affecting individuals, authorities must provide an opportunity to be heard. Failure to do so renders the decision unlawful.
Significance: Connected procedural fairness (right to be heard) with discretionary powers.
5. KHO:2012:45 (Supreme Administrative Court 2012, Case 45)
Facts: A public procurement authority exercised discretion in evaluating bids.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised within the legal framework and without bias.
Ruling: The Court held that discretion in procurement must be exercised transparently and without bias. Decisions must be well-reasoned and open to review.
Significance: Emphasized transparency and accountability as essential in discretionary administrative acts.
6. KHO:2016:10 (Supreme Administrative Court 2016, Case 10)
Facts: An environmental authority used discretion to impose conditions on a permit.
Issue: Whether the conditions were reasonable and aligned with statutory objectives.
Ruling: The Court ruled that discretion includes balancing competing interests and that conditions imposed must be proportionate and justified.
Significance: Showed discretion as a balancing act requiring careful evaluation of facts and law.
Summary
The scope of administrative discretion in Finnish law is:
Legally bounded: Authorities can only exercise discretion where law permits.
Purpose-driven: Decisions must serve the objectives of the governing statute.
Limited by principles: Proportionality, reasonableness, equality, and non-arbitrariness constrain discretion.
Procedurally fair: The right to be heard and transparency are essential procedural safeguards.
Reviewable: Discretionary acts can be reviewed by courts for abuse or misuse.
Finnish courts play a crucial role in ensuring that administrative discretion is exercised responsibly, balancing flexibility for officials with protection of individuals’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments