Date when decision was rendered: 8.11.1994

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4114; R92/676

Reference to source

KKO 1994:114.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1994 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1994 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1994 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1995

Pages: pp. 502-510

Subject

trade, right to property, constitution,
handel, äganderätt, grundlagen,
kauppa, omistusoikeus, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 2 of the Decree on foreign trade and securing of economic growth (162/1974); sections 1 to 3 of the Act on foreign trade and securing of economic growth (157/1974); sections 6 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act

= förordning om utrikeshandel och säkrande av ekonomisk tillväxt (162/1974) 2 §; lag om utrikeshandel och säkrande av ekonomisk tillväxt (157/1974) 1-3 §, Regeringsformen 6 §, 92 § 2 mom.

= ulkomaankaupan ja taloudellisen kasvun turvaamisesta annettu asetus (162/1974) 2 §; ulkomaankaupan ja taloudellisen kasvun turvaamisesta annettu laki (157/1974) 1-3 §, hallitusmuoto 6 §, 92 § 2 mom.

Abstract

The prosecutor demanded that A and B should be sentenced for having imported steel without an import licence in 1978-1982.A and B claimed that the requirement of a permanent import licence, as prescribed in the Decree on foreign trade and securing of economic growth, was contrary to the Act on foreign trade and securing of economic growth.The court of first instance noted that the Act did not explicitly prohibit the use of permanent import licences and that the relevant provisions of the Decree had not been questioned in previous legal praxis.However, the court concluded that there were extenuating circumstances in the case and considering this, the right to institute criminal proceedings had been time-barred.The charges against A and B were therefore dropped.

The case went further to the court of appeal which noted that import restrictions were possible in specific cases listed in the Act on foreign trade and securing of economic growth and that, according to the Act, it was possible to prescribe on such restrictions in a Decree.However, the Act did not provide for the possibility of an obligatory import licence in this case.The Act had been enacted following the procedure for constitutional amendments as its provisions in some cases meant that legislative power was delegated from the Parliament to an executive authority and as some of the provisions could infringe the freedom of economic activity and the right to property.This being the case, the Act had to be interpreted restrictively.The court of appeal then referred to section 92-2 of the Constitution Act, which prescribes that if a provision in a Decree conflicts with an Act of Parliament, a court shall not apply it.As the relevant provisions of the Decree in this case were in conflict with the Act, the court of appeal did not apply the Decree and dropped the charges as being without a foundation in law.

The Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal.As grounds for the restrictive interpretation of the Act, the Supreme Court mainly brought up the delegation of legislative power to an executive authority, whereas one concurring judge emphasized the protection of property rights as prescribed in section 6 of the Constitution Act.

7.4.1998 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 27.2.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No.445; 2406/4/96

Reference to source

KHO 1997:11.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1997 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen årsbok 1997 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1997 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp.51-57

Subject

constitution, civil servants, right to work,
grundlagen, tjänstemän, rätt till arbete,
perustuslaki, virkamiehet, oikeus työhön,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 15-3 of the Constitution Act

= regeringsformen 15 § 3 mom.

= hallitusmuoto 15 § 3 mom.

Abstract

A holder of municipal office had been dismissed on 23 November 1995 with reference to section 13-2-4 of the official regulations of the municipality and based on extremely weighty reasons relating to the administration of the office.This provision had been adopted on the basis of section 45-2-1 of the Local Government Act which entered into force on 1 July 1995.According to section 15- 3 of the Constitution Act, which entered into force on 1 August 1995, no one should be dismissed from work without a lawful cause.The provision also applies to employment relationships in the public sector.

The reasons for dismissal of holders of municipal office were included in the official regulations of municipalities until the Act on the Employment Security of Municipal Officeholders entered into force on 1 July 1996.According to section 23-2 of the Act, if a matter was pending when the Act entered into force, the legal provisions which were in force at that time should be applied.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court, section 13-2-4 of the official regulations was applicable.The provision concerning extremely weighty reasons was similar to provisions in several Acts regarding reasons for dismissal.The provision had been adopted before the entry into force of section 15-3 of the Constitution Act and was not in violation of the law in force at that time.

When the Constitution Act was reformed it was known that several amendments of law were necessary.There were no provisions as to the time period within which the amendments should have been carried out.However, the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament had recommended that such amendments should be carried out as soon as possible.It was not intended that the reasons for dismissal based on the official regulations of the municipality and on the Local Government Act could not have been applied during the time between the entry in to force of section 15-3 of the Constitution Act and that of the Act on the Employment Security of Municipal Officeholders.

14.4.1998 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 21.10.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2632; 3394/1/96

Reference to source

KHO 1997:108.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1997 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1997 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1997 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 196-204

Subject

constitution, right to work, civil servants,
grundlagen, rätt till arbete, tjänstemän,
perustuslaki, oikeus työhön, virkamiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 15-3 of the Constitution Act

= regeringsformen 15 § 3 mom.

= hallitusmuoto 15 § 3 mom.

Abstract

A holder of municipal office was dismissed on account of the fact that the office was abolished and with reference to section 13-2-1 of the official regulations of the municipal federation.This provision had been adopted on the basis of section 45-2-1 of the Local Government Act, which entered into force on 1 July 1995.This happened before the entry into force of section 15-3 of the Constitution Act according to which no one should be dismissed from work without a lawful cause.Section 15-3 also applies to employment relationships in the public sector.

When the Constitution Act was reformed in 1995, it was known that several amendments of law were necessary.There were no provisions as to the time period within which the amendments should have been carried out.However, the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament had recommended that the amendments should be carried out as soon as possible.The new Act on the Employment Security of Municipal Officeholders (484/1996) entered into force on 1 July 1996.It includes, among other things, the legitimate reasons for dismissal of municipal officeholders.According to the new Act, the abolition of an office is no longer a reason for dismissal.Section 23-2 of the Act prescribes that if a matter is pending when the Act enters into force, the legal provisions which were in force at that time should be applied.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that section 15-3 of the Constitution Act should not be interpreted to the effect that it was not possible to apply the Local Government Act or the reasons for dismissal, which were included in the official regulations of the municipal federation and adopted on the basis of the Local Government Act, during the time period between the entry into force of section 15-3 and that of the Act on Employment Security of Municipal Officeholders.Since the abolition of the office was based on section 44-2 of the Local Government Act and the dismissal from office on the reasons for dismissal in the official regulations of the municipal federation, the dismissal was not contrary to law.

14.4.1998 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 21.10.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2633; 2558/4/96

Reference to source

KHO 1997:109.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1997 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1997 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1997 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 204-212

Subject

constitution, right to work, civil servants,
grundlagen, rätt till arbete, tjänstemän,
perustuslaki, oikeus työhön, virkamiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 15-3 of the Constitution Act

= regeringsformen 15 § 3 mom.

= hallitusmuoto 15 § 3 mom.

Abstract

A municipal board abolished an office on 29 September 1995 and, with reference to section 13-2-1 of the official regulations of the municipality, dismissed the holder of the office.Section 13 had been adopted before 1 August 1995 and the entry into force of section 15-3 of the Constitution Act, according to which no one should be dismissed from work without a lawful cause.The provision also applies to employment relationships in the public sector.

When the Constitution Act was reformed in 1995, it was known that several legal amendments would be necessary.There were no provisions as to the time period within which the amendments should have been carried out.However, the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament had recommended that the amendments should be carried out as soon as possible.The new Act on the Employment Security of Municipal Officeholders entered into force on 1 July 1996.It includes, among other things, the legitimate reasons for dismissal of municipal officeholders.According to the new Act, the abolition of an office is no longer a reason for dismissal.Section 23-2 of the Act prescribes that if a matter is pending when the Act enters into force, the legal provisions which were in force at that time should be applied.

With reference to the Constitution Act and the preparatory work concerning its amendment, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that section 15-3 of the Constitution Act should not be interpreted to the effect that it was not possible to apply the Local Government Act or the reasons for dismissal, which were included in the official regulations of the municipality and adopted on the basis of the Local Government Act, during the time period between the entry into force of section 15-3 and that of the Act on the Employment Security of Municipal Officeholders.Since the abolition of the office was based on the Local Government Act and the dismissal from office on the reasons for dismissal in the official regulations of the municipality, the decision of the municipal board regarding the dismissal was not contrary to law.

14.4.1998 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 14.11.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2902; 4275/1/96

Reference to source

KHO 1997:128.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1997 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1997 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1997 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 328-333

Subject

constitution, right to work, civil servants,
grundlagen, rätt till arbete, tjänstemän,
perustuslaki, oikeus työhön, virkamiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 15-3 of the Constitution Act

= regeringsformen 15 § 3 mom.

= hallitusmuoto 15 § 3 mom.

Abstract

The municipal executive board had dismissed A, a holder of municipal office, on 23 May 1996 with reference to section 13-2-3 of the official regulations of the municipality and based on the fact that in spite of several official comments regarding his behaviour, A had continuously neglected his official duties.

The amendment of the Constitution Act regarding constitutional rights entered into force on 1 August 1995.According to section 15-3 of the Constitution Act no one should be dismissed from work without a lawful cause.The provision also applies to employment relationships in the public sector.According to the Government proposal regarding the amendment, the provision should be interpreted as to mean that reasons for dismissal should be based on the law.

The official regulations of the municipality had been adopted on 13 November 1995, after the entry into force of section 15 of the Constitution Act.According to section 92-2 of the Constitution Act, if a provision in a Decree conflicts with a constitutional Act or another Act of Parliament, a judge or other official shall not apply it.According to the established interpretation of section 92, the same concerns provisions on a lower level than Decrees, such as the official regulations of a municipality.Taking into account section 15-3 of the Constitution Act, the municipal executive board should not have applied section 13-2-3 of the official regulations.Therefore, A could not be dismissed on the basis of this provision.

14.4.1998 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 10.6.1988

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2491; 6288/1/87

Reference to source

KHO 1988-A-48.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1988 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1988 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1988 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1989

Pages: pp. 98-99

Subject

criminality, passport, right to leave one's country, constitution,
brottslighet, pass, rätt att lämna sitt land, grundlagen,
rikollisuus, passi, oikeus lähteä maasta, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

Passport Act; Passport Decree; sections 7-2 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act

= passlagen; passförordningen; regeringsformen 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom.

= passilaki; passiasetus; hallitusmuoto 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom.

CCPR-12-2

Abstract

Prior to October 1987, there was no Act of Parliament governing the issuing, denying and cancellation of passports.The matter was dealt with in a Government Decree, which was at least partially problematic in the light of Article 12 of the CCPR (see the critical comments of several members of the Human Rights Committee in UN Doc.CCPR/C/SR.170).On the basis of this Decree, a local police chief had cancelled the passport of A, who was suspected of a crime.The Country Administrative Court upheld the decision.

A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the cancellation of his passport was contrary to Article 12-2 of the CCPR, according to which everyone is free to leave his country and that all restrictions on this right must according to Article 12-3 of the CCPR be "provided by law".As the Covenant had the status of an Act of Parliament and the restrictions were laid down in a Decree only, section 92-2 of the Constitution Act prohibited the application of the Decree.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Covenant had been incorporated through an Act and a Decree.As Article 12-3 of the CCPR allows certain restrictions on the rights set forth in Article 12-2 of the CCPR and taking into account section 7-2 of the Constitution Act, the provisions of the Passport Decree could be applied so that the applicant's passport was cancelled.There was no conflict of norms between the CCPR and the relevant provisions of the Passport Decree.

The Court can be understood to have expressed its willingness to directly apply the provisions of the CCPR.However, as the Court found no norm conflict in the case, it did not go into the issues of the hierarchical status of the Covenant, the applicability of lex posterior etc.

16.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 15.5.1998

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 931; 2306/4/96

Reference to source

KHO 1998:16.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1998 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1998 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1998 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 102-110

Subject

fair trial, legal protection, constitution,
rättvis rättegång, rättsskydd, grundlagen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusturva, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

section 1 of the Act on Firearms and Ammunition; sections 19 and 24 of the Decree on Firearms and Ammunition; sections 16-1 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act

= lag angående skjutvapen och skjutförnödenheter 1 §; förordning angående skjutvapen och skjutförnödenheter 19 §, 24 §; regeringsformen 16 § 1 mom., 92 § 2 mom.

= laki ampuma-aseista ja ampumatarpeista 1 §; asetus ampuma-aseista ja ampumatarpeista 19 §, 24 §; hallitusmuoto 16 § 1 mom., 92 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

With reference to section 1 of the Act on Firearms and Ammunition and sections 19 and 24 of the Decree on Firearms and Ammunition an assistant rural police chief had revoked X's licence to possess a shotgun and a hunting rifle and rejected X's application for a licence to obtain a shotgun.The county administrative board dismissed X's appeal and, on the basis of section 42-2 of the Decree on Firearms, added to its decision a statement that an appeal was not possible.Nevertheless, X appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to section 42-1 of the Decree on Firearms which provides that a person who is not content with the decision by a police authority has the right to appeal to the county administrative board.Under section 42-2 of the Decree, it is not possible to appeal against the decision by the county administrative board.The court concluded that the prohibition to appeal could be upheld as the case did not concern X's rights and obligations as prescribed by section 16-1 of the Constitution Act and Article 6-1 of the ECHR.However, the court considered the case as an extraordinary remedy, a petition for the reversal of the decisions by the police chief and the county administrative board and rejected the petition (with 5 votes against 3).

Those members of the court who were in the minority agreed that the decisions by the police chief and the county administrative board could be upheld.However, they stated that as far as the case was concerning the decision to revoke X's licenses, it should have been considered as an appeal.The decision to revoke the licenses concerned a right which X had been given on the basis of a previous administrative decision.They based their argumentation on section 16-1 of the Constitution Act which refers to "rights and obligations" and should thus be given a wider interpretation than Article 6-1 of the ECHR which talks about "civil rights and obligations".They also referred to section 92-2 of the Constitution Act which provides that if a provision in a Decree conflicts with a constitutional Act or another Act of Parliament, a judge or other official shall not apply it.Section 42-2 of the Decree on Firearms should thus not have been applied as far as the case concerned X's rights.

23.10.2002 / 31.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 11.2.2010

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstol = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report no. 1311:2008

Reference to source

Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

pension, appeal, access to court, constitution,
pension, ändringssökande, rätt till domstolsprövning, grundlagen,
eläke, muutoksenhaku, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 128-2 and 129-2 of the Employees' Pensions Act; section 6 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act

= lag om pension for arbetstagare 128 § 2 mom. och 129 § 2 mom; förvaltningsprocesslag 6 §; grundlagen 21 §

= työntekijän eläkelaki 128 § 2 mom. ja 129 § 2 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §; perustuslaki 21 §

Abstract

X had been granted an old-age pension.In the pension application, X had told he had been working both in Finland and in Sweden but was not going to apply for pension in Sweden.X was not satisfied with the amount of the pension and appealed the pension provider's decision to the Employee Pensions Appeal Board.The Appeal Board referred to the Employees' Pensions Act which provides that a party who has been insured in two or more EU countries and who is dissatisfied with the decision issued by the pension provider may appeal the decision after having received the summarised statement containing decisions of all the EU countries, as referred to in Article 48 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72 on the implementation of EC Regulation on social security.The Appeal Board found that without the summarised statement, there is no right of appeal and dismissed X's appeal as premature without considering it.The pension provider appealed the decision of the Appeal Board to the Insurance Court and requested that X's appeal concerning the pension amount is considered in order to safeguard X's legal rights.The Insurance Court noted that X had indicated that he was not going to apply for pension in Sweden, at least not yet.Therefore, X would not at this stage obtain the requested summarised statement.Consequently, if the Appeal Board's decision remained the final decision concerning X's right of appeal, this would jeopardize X's constitutional right to have a decision pertaining to his pension reviewed by a court of law or other independent organ for the administration of justice.The Insurance Court concluded that in order to ensure the protection of X's constitutional rights, it is necessary that the Appeal Board considers at this stage X's claim concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pension, despite the fact that this deviates from the provisions on the regular appeals procedure as provided for in section 129 of the Employees' Pensions Act and the relevant EU regulations on social security.

15.11.2012 / 16.11.2012 / RHANSKI