Date when decision was rendered: 1.6.2022

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

Reference: Report no. H1601; 124/2022 and 125/2022

Reference to source

KHO 2022:63.

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

effective remedy, freedom to engage in commercial activity, administrative decision,
effektiva rättsmedel, näringsfrihet, förvaltningsbeslut,
tehokas oikeussuojakeino, elinkeinovapaus, hallintopäätös,

Relevant legal provisions

section 21 of the Constitution Act; sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 58a of the Communicable Diseases Act; Government decree (1223/2021) on temporary restrictions on the activities of food and beverage service businesses in order to prevent the spread of a communicable disease; Government decree (5/2022) amending Government decree 1223/2021

= grundlagen 21 §; lag om rättegång i förvaltningsärenden 6 §, 7 §, 8 §; lag om smittsamma sjukdomar 58a §; statsrådet förordning om temporär begränsning av förplägnadsrörelsers verksamhet i syfte att förhindra spridning av en smittsam sjukdom (1223/2021); statsrådets förordning (5/2022) om ändring av statsrådets förordning 1223/2021

= perustuslaki 21 §; laki oikeudenkäynnistä hallintoasioissa 6 §, 7 § ja 8 §; tartuntatautilaki 58a §; valtioneuvoston asetus ravitsemisliikkeiden toiminnan väliaikaisesta rajoittamisesta tartuntataudin leviämisen estämiseksi (1223/2021); valtioneuvoston asetus (5/2022) valtioneuvoston asetuksen 1223/2021 muuttamisesta.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Finnish government had issued decrees which laid down temporary restrictions, for example, on opening hours and the number of clients in restaurants and other food and beverage service businesses.Company A claimed that the restrictions infringed on the freedom to engage in commercial activity.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the government decrees had been issued on the basis of the Communicable Diseases Act.They were general norms in their nature and could not be regarded as administrative decisions appealable under the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.However, the court referred to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Posti and Rahko v.Finland (24 September 2002) and held that the right to an effective remedy, as provided for in section 21 of the Constitution Act and Article 6 of the ECHR, requires that, in exceptional circumstances, an appellant must have the right to challenge the legality of a government decree before a court, even when there is no appealable administrative decision addressed directly to the appellant.In this case, the government decrees were formally addressed to a large group of food and beverage service businesses.They did not essentially affect the rights or obligations of any individual natural or legal person or a group of persons in a similar situation, whether by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons.The Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament had reviewed the constitutionality of the restrictions laid down in the Communicable Diseases Act and the authority to issue decrees on the basis of the Act before the provisions were enacted and entered into force.The Supreme Administrative Court found that in this case there were no specific grounds related to the appellant's right to legal protectin or access to court, which, based on the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, would have required that the appellant is exceptionally granted the possibility to appeal against the government decrees to the Supreme Administrative Court.The appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.

7.7.2023 / 7.7.2023 / RHANSKI