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: 15.6.2000

Judicial body: Administrative Court of Hämeenlinna = Tavastehus förvaltningsdomstol = Hämeenlinnan hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 00/403/4; 00068/00/5730

Reference to source

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to property, right to work,
äganderätt, rätt till arbete,
omistusoikeus, oikeus työhön,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 2, 10 and 20 of the Act on passenger road transport which is subject to licence (343/1991); section 18 of the Constitution Act

= lag om tillståndspliktig persontrafik på väg 2 §, 10 § och 20 §; grundlagen 18 §

= laki luvanvaraisesta henkilöliikenteestä tiellä 2 §, 10 § ja 20 §; perustuslaki 18 §.

ECHRP-1-1

Abstract

The administrative court overturned the decision of the county administrative board, by which the board had revoked A's taxi licence for a certain period of time because A had mainly operated outside the area specified in the licence and thus in violation of the licence conditions.The court took the view that the decision had infringed on A's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the right to earn his livelihood.In its decision, the court referred to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR and section 18 of the Constitution Act (on the right to work and the freedom to engage in commercial activity).

In the court's view, revoking the licence was a very severe measure, considering that the county administrative board would have had other, less severe measures at its disposal.The measure was not in just proportion to the public interest the county administrative board wished to guard (i.e. regional traffic policy).The provisions in the Act on passenger road transport and in regulations based on that Act concerning the legal relevance of specifying the area within which a taxi entrepreneur could operate were unclear and open to various interpretations.As the case was concerning limitations to the legal right to carry on a trade, possible gaps in legislation could not be interpreted to the detriment of the entrepreneur.

The Supreme Administrative Court did not change the decision of the administrative court (Report No. 2091; decision of 6 September 2002).

9.5.2003 / 5.8.2003 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 18.2.2004

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

Reference: Report No. 313; 3011/1/02

Reference to source

KHO 2004:15.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2004 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2004 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2004 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2008

Pages: pp. 121-129

Subject

nulla poena sine lege, principle of legality, right to work,
nulla poena sine lege, legalitetsprincipen, rätt till arbete,
nulla poena sine lege, laillisuusperiaate, oikeus työhön,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 5-2, 7, 8, 22 and 23 of the Act on Real Estate Businesses and Apartment Rental Agencies (1075/2000); sections 8 and 18 of the Constitution Act

= lag om fastighetsförmedlingsrörelser och rörelser för förmedling av hyreslägenheter och hyreslokaler 5 § 2 mom., 7 §, 8 §, 22 § och 23 §; grundlagen 8 § och 18 §

= laki kiinteistönvälitysliikkeistä ja vuokrahuoneiston välitysliikkeistä 5 § 2 mom., 7 §, 8 §, 22 § ja 23 §; perustuslaki 8 § ja 18 §.

ECHR-7

Abstract

In October 2001, the county administrative board had made a decision not to enter real estate business X into a specific register for real estate agencies.According to law, registration is necessary in order for a real estate business to carry out its activities.As grounds for the refusal, the county administrative board stated that the manager of the real estate business, Y, could not be considered reliable.The board referred to section 5-2 of the Act on Real Estate Businesses which prescribes that a manager can be regarded as reliable, among other things, if he or she has not been sentenced to prison during the past five years by a judgment that is legally valid.The Act entered into force in March 2001.Y had been sentenced to prison in 1998 for an empezzlement offence and some other offences.The law which was in force in 1998 did not contain any provisions, equivalent to those of the new Act, on the reliability of the manager of a real estate business.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the principle of legality in criminal cases as provided for in section 8 of the Constitution Act and Article 7 of the ECHR.The Court pointed out that although this case did not concern a penalty for a criminal offence but requirements for registration, the principle of legality in criminal cases was of relevance.When convicted in 1998, Y could not foresee that a new law would be enacted in 2001 including qualification requirements for a manager of a real estate business.The Court ruled that taking into account the principle of legality, the assessment of the manager's reliability as regards offences committed before the entry into force of the Act on Real Estate Businesses could not be categorically bound to the time period of five years prescribed in section 5-2 of the Act.According to the Court, the principle of legality, the constitutional right to work and the freedom to engage in commercial activity do not as such prevent it that offences committed before the entry into force of the Act on Real Estate Businesses are taken into account when assessing the reliability of a manager.Section 5-2 of the Act also provides that a person cannot be regarded as reliable if that person in his or her previous activities in general has shown that he or she is clearly unsuitable for the task of a manager.In such assessment of the matter in its entirety, it is possible to take into account whether a person has been guilty of a criminal offence, the nature of that offence and the time which has elapsed after the offence has been committed.In the Court's opinion, the county administrative board should not have refused to register real estate business X on the grounds given in its decision.Without taking a stand on Y's reliability, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the county administrative board and returned the matter to the board for a new consideration.

25.4.2005 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 28.6.2002

Judicial body: Rovaniemi Court of Appeal = Rovaniemi hovrätt = Rovaniemen hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 414; R02/86

Reference to source

RHO 2002:15.

Electronic database FHOT within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to property, right to work,
äganderätt, rätt till arbete,
omistusoikeus, oikeus työhön,

Relevant legal provisions

Act on fishing in the Tornio River area (494/1997); sections 15 and 18 of the Constitution Act

= lag om fiske inom Torne älvs fiskeområde (494/1997); grundlagen 15 § och 18 §

= laki kalastuksesta Torniojoen kalastusalueella (494/1997); perustuslaki 15 § ja 18 §.

Abstract

By its decision, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had restricted fishing by fixed gear in the Tornio River fishing area between 1 May and 5 July.The purpose of the restriction was to protect wild salmon and to secure the continuation of the fishing of wild salmon in the area.A, B and C had acted in violation of this decision by fishing in the area by fixed gear during the restriction period.The prosecutor brought charges against A, B and C, but the court of first instance decided the case in the defendants' favour.The court held, among other things, that the Ministry's decision was in violation of the Constitution Act and infringed upon the defendants' right to normal and reasonable use of their property and their right to earn their livelihood.Following the prosecutor's appeal, the court of appeal quashed the lower court's decision and sentenced the defendants to a fine.The court of appeal found that the fishing restrictions imposed by the Ministry were sufficiently specified, justified anc necessary for the preservation of wild salmon in the area.The Ministry's decision was based on authorization granted in the Act on fishing in the Tornio River area.During the restriction period, which was fairly short, it was possible to catch other fish than salmon or trout, either by special permission or by other than fixed fishing gear.Moreover, the restrictions applied equally to all those who had fishing rights in the area and were also to their benefit, because the restrictions contributed to the preservation of a sustainable stock of wild salmon in the area.The court of appeal concluded that the fishing restrictions did not violate the defendants' constitutional right to property and did not amount to an unreasonable limitation of their constitutional right to work and to earn their livelihood.The decision is final.The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal in the case (Report No. 1446; decision of 11 June 2003).

26.5.2006 / 26.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 13.6.2005

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1469; S2004/294

Reference to source

KKO 2005:72.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2005 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2005 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2005 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2005

Pages: pp. 507-513

Subject

fair trial, access to court, prostitution, right to work,
rättvis rättegång, rätt till domstolsprövning, prostitution, rätt till arbete,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, prostituutio, oikeus työhön,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 5, section 6-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; sections 18 and 21 of the Constitution Act

= rättegångsbalken 5 kapitel 6 § 2 mom.; grundlagen 18 § och 21 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 5 luku 6 § 2 mom.; perustuslaki 18 § ja 21 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

A had been detained for 51 days in connection with the investigation of an extensive case of pandering.No charges were brought against A and she was released.A made her living as a prostitute.She claimed damages from the state for loss of income during the time in detention.On the basis of Chapter 5, section 6-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, all three court instances refrained from issuing a summons and dismissed the claim as being manifestly unfounded.

In its decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, in Finland, prostitution is not prohibited or made punishable by law, whereas pandering is.Although everyone has a constitutional right to earn his or her livelihood by the employment, occupation or commercial activity of his or her choice, A's activities were under Finnish legal order regarded as being against public decency, in particular because of their apparent link to pandering as admitted by A herself.Contracts which are against the law or public decency are generally held as invalid, and therefore A could not have claimed her fees from her customers through legal proceedings.Consequently, her claim for damages from the state could not be protected by law.The Supreme Court concluded that A's claim was manifestly unfounded and could be dismissed.

The decision was made by a vote.Two concurring justices referred to the constitutional right to choose an occupation and to the case law of the European Court of Justice (Case C-268/99 Aldona Malgorzata Jany and Others).Prostitution may be regarded as an economic or business activity pursued in a self-employed capacity, provided however that it is based on genuine voluntariness and independence, outside any relationship of subordination or pandering.On the basis of A's claim it could be concluded that her activities were linked with a more extensive case of pandering.A's prostitution could therefore not be regarded as an economic activity pursued in a self-employed capacity, and her claim for damages could be dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

One dissenting justice found that the case was concerning fundamental rights (the right to choose an occupation, the right to personal liberty, access to court and the right to receive a reasoned decision).A's claim was based on the law, and it was genuine and serious.Moreover, in Finnish legal praxis, a prostitute's income has been considered as taxable income.The dissenting justice concluded that, on these grounds, A's claim was not manifestly unfounded and should therefore not have been dismissed.

26.5.2006 / 26.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.6.2006

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

Reference: Report no. 1572; 2997/3/04

Reference to source

KHO 2006:38.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 612-620

Subject

disabled persons, social rights, right to work, right to social, health and medical services,
handikappade, sociala rättigheter, rätt till arbete, rätt till social-, hälsovårds- och sjukvårdstjänster,
vammaiset, sosiaaliset oikeudet, oikeus työhön, oikeus sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluihin,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1 and 8 of the Act on services for persons with disabilities; sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Decree on services for persons with disabilities; sections 18 and 19 of the Constitution Act

= lag om service och stöd på grund av handikapp 1 § och 8 §; förordning om service och stöd på grund av handikapp 4 §, 5 § och 6 §; grundlagen 18 § och 19 §

= vammaisuuden perusteella järjestettävistä palveluista ja tukitoimista annettu laki 1 § ja 8 §; vammaisuuden perusteella järjestettävistä palveluista ja tukitoimista annettu asetus 4 §, 5 § ja 6 §; perustuslaki 18 § ja 19 §.

Abstract

According to the Act on services for persons with disabilities, a municipality shall arrange transportation services for a severely handicapped person if such services, because of the nature of the person's disability, are necessary in order for the person to manage in his or her daily life.The Decree on services for persons with disabilities prescribes that transportation services include transport to and from work within the person's municipality of residence or a neighbouring municipality.The municipality can arrange the transport or compensate to the disabled person any reasonable transportation costs.

X, who was severely handicapped, lived in the city of Järvenpää and worked in the city of Vantaa.The distance between his home and his workplace was 22 kilometres.The social welfare board at the city of Järvenpää had decided that transportation services under the Act and Decree on services for persons with disabilities are arranged, besides within the city itself, only to three neighbouring municipalities across the city boundary and to one other municipality situated nearby but not sharing a boundary with Järvenpää.The city of Vantaa was not included in this group.Accordingly, the city of Järvenpää agreed to compensate X's transportation costs from his home to the boundary of the city of Vantaa whereas X himself paid the expenses of transportation from the boundary to his workplace.X claimed before an administrative court that the city should compensate the total cost of transport from his home to his workplace.The court decided the case in X's favour, but the social welfare board appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to sections 18 (the right to work) and 19 (the right to adequate social, health and medical services) of the Constitution Act and the relevant provisions of the Act and Decree on services for people with disabilities.The Court noted that in administrative and court practice pertaining to services for persons with disabilities it is usually held that a "neighbouring municipality" is a municipality sharing a boundary with the municipality of residence.However, although a person can usually run his or her daily errands in the municipality of residence or a neighbouring municipality, this does not always apply to a person's work.Therefore, when compensating the costs of transport to and from work, a municipality further away than across the boundary of the municipality of residence can be regarded as a neighbouring municipality provided that the transport costs are reasonable.The Court ruled that a severely handicapped person's right to transportation services cannot be limited on the ground that a municipality has designated the municipalities it regards as neighbouring ones.In this case, X's municipality of residence, Järvenpää, is situated close to the area surrounding the capital of Helsinki, and it is quite common that people living in Järvenpää work in the metropolitan area in which the city of Vantaa is also included.Moreover, X's way to work (22 kilometres) is not exceptionally long in the metropolitan area.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that X's travel to and from work is to be regarded as transport to and within a neighbouring municipality as prescribed in the Decree on services for people with disabilities.Under the Act on services for people with disabilities, the city of Järvenpää therefore has a duty to arrange X's transport to and from his workplace.

28.6.2006 / 8.9.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.6.2006

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

Reference: Report no. 1574; 2522/3/04

Reference to source

KHO 2006:40.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 625-632

Subject

disabled persons, social rights, right to work, right to social, health and medical services,
handikappade, sociala rättigheter, rätt till arbete, rätt till social-, hälsovårds- och sjukvårdstjänster,
vammaiset, sosiaaliset oikeudet, oikeus työhön, oikeus sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluihin,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1 and 8 of the Act on services for persons with disabilities; sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Decree on services for persons with disabilities; sections 18 and 19 of the Constitution Act

= lag om service och stöd på grund av handikapp 1 § och 8 §; förordning om service och stöd på grund av handikapp 4 §, 5 § och 6 §; grundlagen 18 § och 19 §

= vammaisuuden perusteella järjestettävistä palveluista ja tukitoimista annettu laki 1 § ja 8 §; vammaisuuden perusteella järjestettävistä palveluista ja tukitoimista annettu asetus 4 §, 5 § ja 6 §; perustuslaki 18 § ja 19 §.

Abstract

According to the Act on services for persons with disabilities, a municipality shall arrange transportation services for a severely handicapped person if such services, because of the nature of the person's disability, are necessary in order for the person to manage in his or her daily life.The Decree on services for persons with disabilities prescribes that transportation services include transport to and from work within the person's municipality of residence or a neighbouring municipality.The municipality can arrange the transport or compensate to the disabled person any reasonable transportation costs.

P, who was severely handicapped, lived in the capital city of Helsinki and worked in the city of Kerava.The distance between her home and her workplace was some 30 kilometres.The social welfare board at the city of Helsinki had decided that transportation services under the Act and Decree on services for persons with disabilities are arranged, besides within the city itself, to four neighbouring municipalities all within the metropolitan area.The city of Kerava was not included in this group.Therefore, the city of Helsinki agreed to compensate P's transportation costs from her home to the boundary of the city of Kerava only.P claimed before an administrative court that the city of Helsinki should compensate the total cost of transport from her home to her workplace.The administrative court rejected P's claim on the ground that because of its geographical distance from Helsinki, Kerava could not be regarded as a neighbouring municipality as prescribed in the Decree on services for persons with disabilities.P appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to section 18 (the right to work) and 19 (the right to adequate social, health and medical services) of the Constitution Act and the relevant provisions of the Act and Decree on services for people with disabilities.The Court noted that in administrative and court practice pertaining to services for persons with disabilities it is usually held that a "neighbouring municipality" is a municipality sharing a boundary with the municipality of residence.However, although a person can usually run his or her daily errands in the municipality of residence or a neighbouring municipality, this does not always apply to a person's work.Therefore, when compensating the costs of transport to and from work, a municipality further away that across the boundary of the municipality of residence can be regarded as a neighbouring municipality provided that the transport costs are reasonable.The Court ruled that a severely handicapped person's right to transportation services cannot be limited on the ground that a municipality has designated the municipalities it regards as neighbouring ones.

The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that it is ordinary that people living in Helsinki work in municipalities surrounding the metropolitan area.P's way to work (32-33 kilometres) is not exceptionally long in the metropolitan area.The Court concluded that P's travel to and from work is to be regarded as transport to and within a neighbouring municipality as prescribed in the Decree on services for people with disabilities.Under the Act on services for people with disabilities, the city of Helsinki therefore has a duty to arrange P's transport to and from her workplace.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the social welfare board and referred the matter back to the board for a new consideration.

28.6.2006 / 8.9.2009 / RHANSKI