Date when decision was rendered: 22.11.2018

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

Reference: Report no. 2337/3/17; 5430

Reference to source

KHO 2018:159.

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

children, best interests of the child, right to be heard, disabled persons,
barn, barnets bästa, rätt att höras, handikappade,
lapset, lapsen etu, oikeus tulla kuulluksi, vammaiset,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 4-1, 20-2, 21 amd 87-1 of the Child Welfare Act; sections 17, 18-2, 19a-1, 34-1 and 34-2 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; sections 14-2, 34-1 and 34-2-5 of the Administrative Procedure Act; section 6-3 of the Constitution Act

= barnskyddslagen 4 § 1 mom., 20 § 2 mom., 21 § och 87 § 1 mom.; förvaltningsprocesslag 17 §, 18 § 2 mom., 19a § 1 mom., 34 § 1 och 2 mom.; förvaltningslag 14 § 2 mom., 34 § 1 mom. och 2 mom. 5 punkten; grundlagen 6 § 3 mom.

= lastensuojelulaki 14 § 1 mom., 20 § 2 mom., 21 § ja 87 § 1 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 17 § , 18 § 2 mom., 19a § 1 mom., 34 § 1 ja 2 mom.; hallintolaki 14 § 2 mom., 34 § 1 mom. ja 2 mom. 5 kohta; perustuslaki 6 § 3 mom.

CRC-12

Abstract

A and B had appealed against the decision by which their child C had been taken into substitute care and placed in an institution.The municipal board of social affairs and health had found that C's health and development were seriously endangered by the circumstances in which the child was being brought up.C was severely handicapped and autistic.C did not speak but communicated by gestures.In the appeal proceedings, the administrative court had heard the parents in an oral hearing.The parents requested an oral hearing also before the Supreme Administrative Court but the court decided it was not necessary.However, the court considered the question whether C should be heard in the matter.At the time C was 16 years old.

According to the Child Welfare Act, children aged 12 or over must be reserved an opportunity to express their views in a child welfare case concerning them.In addition to the child's custodian or other legal representative, a child who is 12 years of age or more is entitled to be heard in a child welfare case concerning said child.The Supreme Administrative Court found that based on these provisions C should be heard in the case.However, the court then noted that there is no provision in the Child Welfare Act or in other legislation which would regulate in more detail the right of a child to be heard in a situation where the child, who is over 12 years old but has not yet reached the age of majority (18 years), is not capable of understanding the significance of the child welfare matter concerning himself or herself.According to the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, a legally incompetent person who has attained the age of 18 years shall himself alone exercise his right to be heard in a matter relating to his person, if he can understand the significance of the matter.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that due to the nature of C's disability C is not able to understand the significance of the decision concerning substitute care or of the appeal submitted by the parents.Having also taken into account the best interests of the child the court resolved the matter without hearing C.The court also found that there was no conflict of interests between the child C and the parents A and B in this case.Therefore it was not necessary to appoint ex officio a guardian to look after C's interests in the judicial proceedings.The court held that this did not contradict Article 12 of the CRC.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the decision on placing C in institutional care met with the criteria provided for in the Child Welfare Act.It upheld the decision of the administrative court.

4.4.2019 / 4.4.2019 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 13.8.2020

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 52018/611; 1154

Reference to source

KKO:2020:58.

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to be heard, labour law, participation,
rätt att höras, arbetsrätt, deltagande,
oikeus tulla kuulluksi, työoikeus, osallistuminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 7, 46 and 50 of the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings

= lag om samarbete inom företag 7 §, 46 § och 50 §

= laki yhteistoiminnasta yrityksissä 7 §, 46 § ja 50 §.

Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

An employer had introduced separate consultation procedures simultaneously within two different personnel groups.The purpose was to reduce costs by reducing staff.As a result, 14 employees lost their jobs.Eleven of them argued that the employer had failed to observe the provisions of the Act on Cooperation with Undertakings (334/2007) for not having combined the two consultation procedures.They claimed indemnification by virtue of the indemnification clause in the Act.

The Act on Cooperation within Undertakings incorporates into national law the provisions of the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive 2002/14/EC and the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC.The Supreme Court noted that the Act should be interpreted, as far as possible, in the light of the two directives and Article 27 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning workers' right to information and consultation.The provisions of the two directives and the Act leave it for the employer to decide whether simultaneously projected measures are discussed in separate consultation procedures or a joint procedure.A key element is that the representatives of the personnel groups, whom the projected measures concern, are consulted on each such measure.Whether this is in joint or separate procedures, the employer has a duty to see to it that the procedure meets with the requirements set in the Act on Cooperatiuon within Undertakings and that the employees' right to information and consultation is ensured.

In this case, the representatives of the personnel groups concerned had received at the early stage of the consultation procedures information about projected measures that were relevant with regard to issues discussed in both procedures.The personnel groups concerned where represented by the same shop steward, who participated in both procedures and was thus informed of the developments in each procedure.The final decision on measures which were concerning both personnel groups was made by the employer only after both consultation procedures had been completed.The Supreme Court ocncluded that the employer had not failed to observe the provisions of the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings.Workers' right to information and consultation, as guaranteed in the Collective Redundancies Directive and Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, was not deprived of its effectiveness.There were thus no grounds for an indemnification claim.

3.7.2023 / 3.7.2023 / RHANSKI