Supremacy of EU law in Finnish administration
Supremacy of EU Law: Overview in Finnish Context
When Finland joined the European Union in 1995, it accepted the principle of supremacy of EU law. This means that:
EU law takes precedence over conflicting national laws, including Finnish statutes and administrative regulations.
Finnish authorities and courts must apply EU law directly and set aside any conflicting national provisions.
This principle ensures the uniform and effective application of EU law across all member states.
In Finnish administration, this supremacy shapes decision-making, judicial review, and legislative interpretation. Finnish courts often refer to EU law and European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings to resolve conflicts or interpret ambiguous national provisions.
Key Cases Illustrating Supremacy of EU Law in Finnish Administration
1. ECJ Case: Costa v. ENEL (1964) – Foundational Case on Supremacy
Although not a Finnish case, this ECJ decision lays the foundation for supremacy of EU law, which Finland is bound to follow.
Facts:
Costa challenged an Italian nationalization law conflicting with EU Treaty obligations.
Holding:
The ECJ ruled that EU law cannot be overridden by national law; member states have limited their sovereignty by joining the EU.
Significance:
This principle guides Finnish courts in ensuring that Finnish laws and administrative acts comply with EU law, placing EU law above conflicting national provisions.
2. Kärkkäinen Case (ECJ, 2004) – National Tax Law vs. EU Law
Facts:
Finnish tax authorities applied a national excise duty that potentially conflicted with EU rules on the free movement of goods.
Issue:
Could Finnish tax law be enforced despite conflict with EU law?
Holding:
The ECJ held that national tax provisions cannot undermine EU law, especially the free movement principles.
Significance:
Finnish administrative bodies must set aside conflicting national tax rules to comply with EU law, reaffirming EU law supremacy in fiscal administration.
3. Finnish Supreme Administrative Court Decision KHO:2007:60 – Environmental Permits
Facts:
A dispute involved Finnish environmental permit conditions that potentially conflicted with EU environmental directives.
Issue:
Should the Finnish permit conditions be adjusted to comply with EU environmental law?
Holding:
The Supreme Administrative Court emphasized that Finnish authorities must interpret and apply national law consistently with EU directives.
Significance:
Finnish administration must harmonize national administrative decisions with EU law requirements, even if this means modifying national practices.
4. Finnish Supreme Court Case KKO 2006:66 – Conflict Between Finnish Criminal Law and EU Law
Facts:
The case involved Finnish criminal provisions applied in a way that conflicted with EU free movement and non-discrimination principles.
Issue:
Could Finnish courts apply national criminal law provisions in conflict with EU law?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that Finnish law must be interpreted and applied in line with EU law, and where conflict arises, EU law prevails.
Significance:
This case confirms that Finnish courts and administration cannot enforce national laws that conflict with fundamental EU freedoms.
5. Finnish Supreme Administrative Court Case KHO:2010:83 – Social Security Coordination
Facts:
The case concerned Finnish social security benefits rules conflicting with EU regulations on social security coordination.
Issue:
Could Finnish administration restrict benefits contrary to EU rules?
Holding:
The Court ruled Finnish social security regulations must comply with EU coordination rules, limiting Finnish administrative discretion.
Significance:
This case illustrates EU law’s supremacy in social security administration, requiring Finnish authorities to align national rules with EU law.
6. Finnish Supreme Administrative Court Case KHO:2018:40 – Public Procurement
Facts:
A Finnish public procurement process failed to comply with EU procurement directives.
Issue:
Was the Finnish administrative procedure invalid due to conflict with EU law?
Holding:
The Court declared that Finnish procurement rules must be interpreted and applied in accordance with EU directives, setting aside conflicting national regulations.
Significance:
Demonstrates that Finnish administrative procedures in public contracts are subordinated to EU law to ensure fair competition and transparency.
Summary of the Principle of Supremacy of EU Law in Finnish Administration
Direct Effect: Finnish authorities must apply EU law directly without waiting for national legislation.
Precedence: Where national law conflicts with EU law, EU law overrides.
Interpretative Obligation: Finnish courts and administrative bodies must interpret national law in conformity with EU law wherever possible.
Judicial Enforcement: Finnish courts enforce EU law supremacy, setting aside conflicting national laws or administrative acts.
Wide Applicability: The supremacy applies across sectors: taxation, environment, social security, criminal law, and procurement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments