Abstract
The Finnish legal system shows only limited judicial deference to administrative discretion. Instead, more value is generally accorded to effective judicial protection and other related factors, such as adequate access to a court, guarantees of procedural fairness, the sufficiently broad scope of judicial review, effective remedies and a relatively active role for the administrative courts. In Finland, as in several other continental European jurisdictions with separate administrative courts, procedural law tends to attribute an active role to the courts. The courts exercise judicial power and play a central role in offering legal protection to individuals affected by administrative decision-making. Judicial review can constrain the exercise of executive power because of its emphasis on adherence to the law and legal principles. On the other hand, investigation of the advisability and expediency of an administrative decision falls outside the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. A further limit to judicial power is based on constitutional principles, more precisely on the separation of powers doctrine. According to that doctrine, the actual adoption of an administrative decision belongs exclusively to the sphere of executive power.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On the characteristics of Nordic Law, see Letto-Vanamo et al. (2019).
- 2.
For more detail, see Nuotio et al. (2012).
- 3.
Mantovanelli v. France, ECHR (1997) § 33.
- 4.
See generally Kress v. France, ECHR (2001).
- 5.
Vilén v. Finland, ECHR (2009) § 21; Helle v. Finland, ECHR (1997) §§ 53-54.
- 6.
KHO 2016:180.
- 7.
See in general Daly (2012).
- 8.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defence Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), 843–844.
- 9.
The traffic-light theory was first introduced by Harlow and Rawlings (1997), pp. 29–127.
- 10.
For a comparative analysis see e.g. Spiliotopoulos (2000).
- 11.
KHO 2017:151.
- 12.
On the concept and scope of judicial review with respect to executive action, see Hertogh et al. (2004).
- 13.
On the constitutional implications in general, see e.g. Elliott (2001).
- 14.
E.g. KHO 2017:167.
- 15.
Section 106: “If in a matter being tried by a court, the application of an Act of Parliament would be in manifest conflict with the Constitution, the court shall give primacy to the provision in the Constitution.”
- 16.
Section 107: If a provision in a Decree or another statute of a lower level than an Act is in conflict with the Constitution or another Act, it shall not be applied by a court of law or by any other public authority.
- 17.
Galera (2010).
- 18.
KHO 2017:130.
- 19.
For more detail, see Mäenpää (2017).
References
Daly P (2012) A theory of deference in administrative law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Elliott M (2001) The constitutional foundations of judicial review. Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford
Galera S (ed) (2010) Judicial review: a comparative analysis inside the European legal system. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
Harlow C, Rawlings R (1997) Law and administration, 1st edn. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 1984
Hertogh M, Halliday S, Arup C (2004) Judicial review and bureaucratic impact: international and interdisciplinary perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Letto-Vanamo P, Tamm D, Gram Mortensen B (eds) (2019) Nordic law in European context. Springer, Berlin
Mäenpää O (2017) Judiciary v. executive: judicial review and the exercise of executive power. Juridiska Föreningens Tidskrift 2–4:242–255
Nuotio K et al (eds) (2012) Introduction to Finnish law and legal culture. Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
Spiliotopoulos E (ed) (2000) Towards a unified protection of citizens in Europe (?). Esperia, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mäenpää, O. (2019). Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Finland. In: Zhu, G. (eds) Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31538-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31539-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)