Scope of discretion under Finnish law
Scope of Discretion under Finnish Law
🔹 What is Administrative Discretion?
In administrative law, discretion refers to the power granted to administrative authorities to make choices among alternatives within the limits set by law. The scope of discretion defines how freely or narrowly the authority can decide, balancing flexibility and control.
🔹 Finnish Legal Framework on Discretion
Constitution of Finland (1999): Emphasizes legality, proportionality, and the rule of law as guiding principles for administrative action.
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003): Governs how administrative decisions are made, emphasizing reasoned decisions and fairness.
General principles of Finnish administrative law: Discretion must be exercised in good faith, within legal limits, respecting equality, proportionality, and reasonableness.
Finnish law differentiates between:
Binding discretion: Where the law limits discretion tightly.
Wide discretion: Where authorities have significant leeway, but still under judicial review.
🔹 Control and Limits of Discretion
Finnish courts apply several principles to control discretion:
Legality: Decisions must comply with statutory provisions.
Proportionality: Measures must not be excessive relative to the aim.
Reasonableness: Decisions must be logical and justifiable.
Equality: Like cases must be treated alike.
Purpose limitation: Discretion must serve the law’s purpose.
Motivation: Authorities must provide reasoned explanations for discretionary decisions.
📚 Finnish Case Law on Scope of Discretion
1. Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), KHO:1999:64
Facts: A municipality denied a building permit citing aesthetic concerns without detailed explanation.
Issue: Whether the municipality’s discretion was properly exercised.
Judgment: The SAC held that discretion must be exercised based on clear legal grounds and must be reasoned. Vague grounds like “aesthetic concerns” without explanation violated the requirement of motivation.
Significance: Established that even wide discretion is subject to reasoned justification.
2. SAC, KHO:2007:12
Facts: The Social Insurance Institution exercised discretion in granting disability benefits.
Issue: Whether the institution exceeded its discretion by denying benefits on arbitrary grounds.
Judgment: Court ruled that discretion must align with the purpose of the law (supporting disabled persons) and not be arbitrary or inconsistent.
Significance: Confirmed that discretion is bounded by the object and purpose of the enabling statute.
3. SAC, KHO:2014:85
Facts: Environmental authority refused to grant a permit citing potential harm but failed to consider mitigation measures proposed by applicant.
Issue: Whether the refusal was a reasonable exercise of discretion.
Judgment: Court held that discretion must involve a balanced assessment, considering all relevant factors. Ignoring mitigating evidence was an abuse of discretion.
Significance: Reinforced that discretion requires comprehensive evaluation of facts.
4. SAC, KHO:2010:18
Facts: Tax authority exercised discretion in penalty assessment for delayed tax payment.
Issue: Whether discretion was exercised fairly and consistently.
Judgment: The SAC emphasized the principle of equality and required similar cases to be treated alike, finding the authority’s decision inconsistent.
Significance: Clarified that discretion is subject to equality and consistency.
5. Helsinki Administrative Court, 2018
Facts: Police revoked a public event permit citing security concerns.
Issue: Whether the discretion was exercised properly.
Judgment: The court required the police to balance public safety with freedom of assembly, ruling the revocation disproportionate without less restrictive measures.
Significance: Highlighted the role of proportionality in discretionary decisions.
📊 Summary Table: Finnish Case Law on Discretion
| Case & Year | Issue | Court Finding | Principle Affirmed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAC KHO:1999:64 | Building permit discretion | Must be reasoned, not vague | Motivation and transparency |
| SAC KHO:2007:12 | Disability benefit denial | Must align with law’s purpose | Purpose limitation |
| SAC KHO:2014:85 | Environmental permit refusal | Must consider all relevant facts | Balanced and comprehensive review |
| SAC KHO:2010:18 | Tax penalty assessment | Must be consistent and equal | Equality and fairness |
| Helsinki Admin Court 2018 | Public event permit revocation | Must balance safety and rights | Proportionality and reasonableness |
✅ Conclusion
The scope of discretion under Finnish law is broad but firmly bounded by principles of legality, reasonableness, proportionality, equality, and purpose limitation. Finnish courts maintain active judicial control over discretion to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fair administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments