Date when decision was rendered: 27.2.2009

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

Reference: Report no. 442; 1966/1/07

Reference to source

KHO 2009:24.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2009 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2009 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2009 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: pp. 225-233

Subject

social rights, right to property, right to housing, equality before the law,
sociala rättigheter, äganderätt, rätt till bostad, likhet inför lagen,
sosiaaliset oikeudet, omistusoikeus, oikeus asuntoon, tasa-arvoisuus lain edessä,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 2, 7b, 7c, 10c and 11 of the Act on client fees in social welfare and health care; sections 1 and 15 of the Decree on client fees in social welfare and health care; sections 6-1, 15-1 and 22 of the Constitution Act

= lag om klientavgifter inom social- och hälsovården 1 §, 2 §, 7b §, 7c §, 10c § och 11 §; förordning om klientavgifter inom social- och hälsorvården 1 § och 15 §; grundlagen 6 § 1 mom., 15 § 1 mom. och 22 §

= laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 1 §, 2 §, 7b §, 7c §, 10c § ja 11 §; asetus sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 1 § ja 15 §; perustuslaki 6 § 1 mom., 15 § 1 mom. ja 22 §.

ECHRP-1-1

Abstract

A municipal social welfare board had made a policy decision to the effect that persons in long-term institutional care would be charged a client fee in accordance with the Act on client fees in social welfare and health care, but the person's costs of living in rented or owner-occupied home would no longer be taken into account when determining the amoung of the fee.X asked the board to rectify its decision, claiming that the decision had no basis in law and was in conflict with several constitutional rights, among them equality before the law, the protection of property and the right to housing.The board rejected X's request.When the administrative court had rejected X's appeal, X filed an appeal in the Supreme Administrative Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the municipalities can determine the amount of client fees within the limits prescribed in the Act and Decree on client fees in social welfare and health care.According to the Act, those in long-term institutional care will be charged a fee which is set taking into consideration the person's solvency and monthly income.The Act also lists the costs that are to be deducted from the monthly income before determining the amount of the fee.Housing costs are not mentioned among such costs.In taking housing costs into consideration when determining the client fee for persons in long-term institutional care, the social welfare board had thus granted an additional benefit as compared to the provisions of the Act.The Supreme Administrative Court found that in making the decision and in reversing it later, the board had not exceeded its discretion or authority.In the Court's opinion, the board's decision was not contrary to law nor in conflict with the protection of property as prescribed in the Constitution Act and the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR or with the constitutional provisions on equality and non-discrimination.The Court continued by pointing out that the Act on client fees also provides for the possibility to waive or reduce a client fee, for example, if collecting the fee would jeopardize a person's income or the income of that person's family.The Court concluded that, by its policy decision, the board had not conclusively resolved whether housing costs could be deducted from the monthly income before determining the amount of the fee.Rather, this question is considered on a case-by-case basis.Moreover, the decision by which a client fee is determined can be appealed under the Act on client fees.The Supreme Administrative Court rejected X's appeal.

23.11.2009 / 21.10.2010 / RHANSKI