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: 24.3.2000

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 0477; R99/107

Reference to source

KKO 2000:40.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2000 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2000 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2000 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 2000

Pages: pp. 169-188

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, civil servants,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, tjänstemän,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, virkamiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 15 and 45 of the State Civil Servants Act; Chapter 40, section 11 of the Penal Code; section 16 of the Constitution Act

= statstjänstemannalagen 15 §, 45 §; strafflagen 40 kapitel 11 §; grundlagen 16 §

= valtion virkamieslaki 15 §, 45 §; rikoslaki 40 luku 11 §; perustuslaki 16 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The case concerned the question whether three members of the water court had acted contrary to their official duties when they had enjoyed the hospitality of a water-power company in the form of food, drinks and accommodation.Such practice had been going on for several years and had happened mainly during inspections or other official missions, but in case of one member also during a holiday trip.At the same time, fairly controversial matters which concerned licence applications or compensation for damage and to which the water-power company was a party, had been pending before the water court.The three members of the court had participated in the consideration of these matters.

The Helsinki Court of Appeal considered the case as a first instance court mainly on the basis of the relevant provisions of the State Civil Servants Act and the Penal Code (concerning economic benefits which may endanger the impartiality of a state official and acting contrary to one's official duties).The three defendants were convicted.The court considered, among other things, the issue whether the kind of hospitality as had been provided by the water-power company could under some circumstances be regarded as normal and acceptable and whether it under other circumstances had endangered the trust in the impartiality of the court members.When discussing the question of impartiality, the court also referred to section 16 of the Constitution Act (right to a fair trial) and to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and noted that the impartiality of a court should be plausible also when reviewed by an outside observer.In this case, the impartiality of the court members had been jeopardized.

The defendants took the case further to the Supreme Court which dismissed some of the charges, mitigated the punishment of one defendant and waived the sentences of two defendants.In its decision, the Supreme Court did not refer to the ECHR.

28.10.2002 / 9.4.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.4.2008

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

Reference: Report no. 882; 3705/2/06

Reference to source

KHO 2008:25.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2008 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2008 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2008 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2011

Pages: pp. 375-404

Subject

access to court, effective remedy, legal protection, civil servants, fair trial,
rätt till domstolsprövning, effektiva rättsmedel, rättsskydd, tjänstemän, rättvis rättegång,
oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, tehokas oikeussuojakeino, oikeusturva, virkamiehet, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 5 and 58 of the State Civil Servants Act; sections 21, 22 and 106 of the Constitution Act

= statstjänstemannalag 5 § och 58 §; grundlagen 21 §, 22 § och 106 §

= valtion virkamieslaki 5 § ja 58 §; perustuslaki 21 §, 22 § ja 106 §.

ECHR-6; CCPR-14

Abstract

X had a public office at the faculty administration of a university.The faculty council decided that X's post would be transferred from the faculty to the university central administration.X objected to the decision.According to the State Civil Servants Act, a decision concerning the transfer of a public office is not subject to appeal.In such a case, the alternative is extraordinary appeal on grounds provided in the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.The Supreme Administrative Court found that the requirements for the annulment of the decision, as a means of extraordinary appeal under the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, were not fulfilled in this case.The Court then discussed the possibility to consider X's appeal despite the prohibition against appeal in the State Civil Servants Act.

The Court pointed out that under the State Civil Servants Act, a post which has not been declared vacant, cannot be transferred without the consent of the civil servant who holds the post.According to the Court, the requirement of consent was prescribed in order to protect the legal status of civil servants and their independent and permanent position.Therefore, a decision on the transfer of a public office pertains to the rights and obligations of a civil servant.The Court found that the right of appeal under section 21 of the Constitution Act, which refers to a person's rights and obligations, may have a wider scope of application as compared to Article 6 of the ECHR which specifically refers to "civil rights and obligations" and whose applicability in cases pertaining to civil servants is restricted.In the Court's opinion, extraordinary appeal under the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act could not be regarded as an effective remedy in this case.Applying the prohibition against appeal in section 58 of the State Civil Servants Act would prevent X from exercising her right of appeal as guaranteed in section 21 of the Constitution Act and would thus be in evident conflict with the Constitution, as prescribed in section 106 of the Constitution Act.Therefore, the Court concluded, section 58 should not be applied in this case and X's appeal should be considered despite the prohibition against appeal.The Court then quashed the decision of the faculty council on the grounds that the decision was contrary to the State Civil Servants Act because it had been made without X's consent.

9.4.2010 / 28.3.2011 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.2.2011

Judicial body: Helsinki Administrative Court = Helsingfors förvaltningsdomstol = Helsingin hallito-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 11/0169/2

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

appeal, right to liberty, integrity, civil servants,
ändringssökande, rätt till frihet, integritet, tjänstemän,
muutoksenhaku, oikeus vapauteen, koskemattomuus, virkamiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

section 19 of the Act on Municipal Office Holders; sections 89, 90 and 91 of the Local Government Act; section 7 of the Constitution Act

= lag om kommunala tjänsteinnehavare 19 §; kommunallag 89 §, 90 § och 91 §; grundlagen 7 §

= laki kunnallisesta viranhaltijasta 19 §; kuntalaki 89 §, 90 § ja 91 §; perustuslaki 7 §

Abstract

The main question in this case was whether ordering a civil servant in a municipality to undergo an assessment of his/her ability to work was a decision against which appeal was allowed or an official order from the employer which according to the Local Government Act was not subject to rectification or appeal.The administrative court found that a civil servant's obligation to attend a medical examination or assessment on the basis of the employer's order under the Act on Municipal Office Holders is an interference in the right to personal liberty and integrity as prescribed in the Constitution Act.In this case, therefore, an order to undergo an assessment of work ability had such an impact on a civil servant's rights and obligations that the civil servant was entitled to have the decision reviewed by an appeal body.Also, the right to appeal against a decision on an assessment of work ability was not expressly restricted in law.The administrative court concluded that the order from a municipal authority for the assessment of a civil servant's work ability was a decision against which appeal was allowed.The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court (report no. 1168 of 29 April 2011).

8.10.2012 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI