The relationship of legality and democracy in Finnish administration
🔹 I. The Relationship Between Legality and Democracy in Finnish Administration
1. Legality Principle (Laillisuusperiaate)
The legality principle is enshrined in:
Section 2 of the Constitution of Finland:
"The exercise of public powers shall be based on an Act. In all public activity, the law shall be strictly observed."
This principle ensures that all administrative actions must have a legal basis and must conform to laws passed by the democratically elected Parliament (Eduskunta).
2. Democratic Governance
The democratic foundation of administration means that public officials act under laws passed by elected representatives.
Citizens have the right to participate, appeal decisions, and review administrative actions.
Democracy is operationalized through:
Parliamentary oversight
Judicial review
Open government (e.g., publicity of official documents)
The right to fair treatment and appeal
🔹 II. Detailed Case Law: Legality and Democracy in Action
Here are five key Finnish legal cases where courts have examined the balance between legality and democratic principles in administrative decisions.
1. KHO 2004:4 – The Right to Be Heard in Municipal Decisions
Facts: A municipality made a decision affecting a resident's property without informing or hearing them in the process.
Issue: Did the municipality violate the resident’s legal right to participate and be heard?
Ruling: The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the municipality had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003), particularly the right to be heard under Section 34.
Significance: Reinforced the democratic right of individuals to participate in decisions affecting them, and emphasized the rule of law as a procedural safeguard.
2. KHO 2006:86 – Equality in Administrative Decision-Making
Facts: A municipality granted subsidies to certain private schools but denied similar subsidies to another comparable school.
Issue: Was this unequal treatment legal?
Ruling: The Court found that the municipality had violated the principle of equality under Section 6 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which require equal treatment of individuals and institutions.
Significance: Reinforced that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly and equally, linking legality with democratic values like non-discrimination.
3. KHO 2010:15 – Transparency and the Right to Information
Facts: A journalist requested access to internal documents from a government agency related to policy planning, and the agency denied the request.
Issue: Did the agency violate the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999)?
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the journalist, stating that transparency is a democratic requirement, and the documents did not fall under any lawful exceptions to openness.
Significance: Confirmed the right to information as part of democratic governance, reinforcing that public administration must be transparent unless restricted by law.
4. KHO 2011:81 – Discretion and Legal Boundaries in Immigration Decisions
Facts: The Finnish Immigration Service denied a residence permit based on internal guidelines not publicly available.
Issue: Can internal guidelines be used as a basis for decisions if not publicly disclosed?
Ruling: The Court ruled that while administrative discretion exists, decisions must be based on publicly accessible laws and regulations, not secretive criteria.
Significance: Emphasized transparency, legality, and predictability, which are crucial in a democratic rule-of-law state.
5. KHO 2015:13 – Public Participation in Environmental Administration
Facts: A regional authority issued an environmental permit for an industrial facility without adequately consulting affected communities.
Issue: Was the public properly involved in environmental decision-making?
Ruling: The Court annulled the permit, citing violations of the Environmental Protection Act and international obligations under the Aarhus Convention.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of public participation in administrative processes, especially in matters affecting public interest, showing how democracy extends to environmental governance.
6. KHO 2018:36 – Electoral Equality and Municipality Reorganization
Facts: A municipal merger led to unequal representation in the new local council.
Issue: Did the new electoral arrangements violate electoral equality?
Ruling: The Court found that the arrangement disproportionately favored residents from one former municipality, violating Section 14 of the Constitution (electoral rights).
Significance: Demonstrated how the courts protect democratic rights in administrative decisions, ensuring fair political representation.
🔹 III. Summary: Key Themes from Case Law
| Principle | Legal Source | Case Examples | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality | Constitution §2, Admin Procedure Act | KHO 2004:4, 2011:81 | Ensures actions are based on law |
| Equality | Constitution §6 | KHO 2006:86, 2018:36 | Prevents arbitrary or discriminatory administration |
| Transparency | Openness Act, Constitution §12 | KHO 2010:15, 2011:81 | Promotes accountability and trust |
| Participation | Constitution §20, Aarhus Convention | KHO 2004:4, 2015:13 | Citizens must be heard and involved |
| Judicial Oversight | Constitution §21 | All Cases | Courts ensure administration respects rights |
🔚 Conclusion
The relationship between legality and democracy in Finnish administration is foundational and symbiotic. Legality ensures that all administrative actions have a lawful basis, while democracy ensures that those laws originate from representative institutions and protect citizens' rights. Finnish case law repeatedly confirms that transparency, participation, equality, and accountability are not just abstract values but enforceable legal standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments