Ministry of Justice, Finland

TO PRINT OUT THE BROCHURE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK TO THE RIGHT ON THE TOP OF THIS PAGE.  

WHAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT?

The Finnish courts are divided into two main groups: general courts and administrative courts. Administrative courts comprise the Supreme Administrative Court and eight administrative courts named after their seats as the Administrative Courts of Helsinki, Hämeenlinna, Kouvola, Kuopio, Oulu, Rovaniemi, Turku and Vaasa. The Åland Islands have their own Administrative Court.

Each administrative court administers justice in administrative matters in the area of one or several provinces. However, certain types of cases have been centralised to be dealt with by one administrative court only. For example matters of value-added tax and asylum are dealt with by the Administrative Court of Helsinki and matters under the Environmental Protection Act and the Water Act by the Administrative Court of Vaasa.

An administrative court hears appeals of individuals and corporations against decisions of the authorities in administrative matters. The appeals lodged with administrative courts concern among other things:

• taxation;
• social welfare and health care, such as decisions relating to subsistence support, support for the disabled, child welfare and mental health;
• matters relating to the environment, construction and land use, such as decisions on environmental and building permits;
• matters relating to municipal autonomy;
• decisions of the authorities on carrying on a trade or business;
• various charges imposed by the authorities, such as parking tickets, public transport penalty fares and waste charges.

In several matters, the appeal may be lodged directly with an administrative court. However, in taxation matters, municipal matters and several social matters a party who is not satisfied with the decision of an authority must first submit an adjustment request to the competent authority. The decision of this authority can then be appealed in an administrative court.

The English translation of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (586/1996) is found on the Internet at http://www.finlex.fi.

Updated on September 30, 2005

Administration is governed by a general right of appeal. A decision of an authority finally deciding a matter can as a rule be appealed. If a decision is open to appeal, the authority must append appeal instructions to the decision. The instructions contain a time limit for appealing and information on which authority the appeal shall be submitted to. An appeal made in compliance with the appeal instructions is always considered to have been correctly made.

If an authority has not appended appeal instructions to its decision, queries as to the reason for this should be addressed to the authority.

In the letter of appeal, the appellant shall indicate to the administrative court

• in what respects amendment of the decision is sought (the whole decision or part of it);
• the amendments demanded;
• the grounds on which the challenge is based.

The letter of appeal should be drafted with care. The contents of the letter of appeal may decide the extent to which the administrative court will review the matter. The administrative court does not normally have the right to review a matter more extensively than what is requested by the appellant. Clearly and precisely stated requests promote the hearing of the matter and contribute to reaching a correct end result.

When the administrative court has received a letter of appeal it obtains a statement on the matter from the authority that made the challenged decision. It also acquires the documents on which the decision was based. The administrative court may ask the parties to supply additional information necessary to decide the matter. The administrative court may also acquire necessary additional accounts clarification on its own initiative.

After that, the administrative court requests the appellant to comment on the statements and reports it has obtained.

The majority of appeals are resolved by the administrative court on the basis of the written material obtained without hearing the parties orally. Oral hearings are, however, also held in the administrative court.

The appellant or the opposing party may request the administrative court to hold an oral hearing when examining the appeal. The request must be justified by showing why a written hearing is insufficient and what evidence will be presented at the oral hearing.

An administrative court must normally hold an oral hearing if so requested by a party. An oral hearing does not have to be held if the demand presented in the appeal cannot be examined at all, if it is dismissed without consideration of its merits or if it obviously unnecessary.

At an oral hearing the parties and the authorities usually first present to the members of the court their understanding of the challenged decision and the appeal against it. The members of the court may also ask questions. After that, the normal procedure is to hear witnesses called by the parties or by the court itself.

The administrative court will summon the witnesses called by the appellant, another private party or the authority if so requested. If the court is not asked to assist in the summoning, it should nevertheless/still be notified in advance of what witnesses will be present at the oral hearing.

At an oral hearing, decisions relating to the hearing of the matter may be made, but the principal claim is not resolved immediately at the end of an oral hearing. Usually the decision is postponed to be made in a session that is not open to the public.

An oral hearing does not replace the written trial material, but supplements it. At an oral hearing it is, therefore, not necessary to consider again other material than that on which the parties disagree or regarding which they want to present further clarification.

The administrative court may restrict the oral hearing for example to only a part of the matter.

The administrative court also performs inspections, i.e., visits the scene to make observations on the object or site subject to the litigation. Inspections are carried out especially in connection with construction and environmental matters.

When all the material necessary to review the matter is available, the administrative court makes its decision. The decision is mailed to the parties. In urgent matters, the parties may also be informed of the decision in another manner.

A minimum of three judges participate in the making of the decision. The decision is made on the basis of the draft decision prepared by the referendary. In matters relating to mental health, child welfare, mental disability, abuse of intoxicants and infectious diseases two judges and an expert member participate in the decision-making. In matters governed by the Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act one or more of the judges shall be experts in technology or natural sciences.

A decision of an administrative court may usually be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. In, for example, taxation matters an appeal against a decision of an administrative court may, however, be lodged only if the Supreme Administrative Court grants leave of appeal. Appeals against administrative court decisions are totally forbidden in very few types of matters.

The Supreme Administrative Court is the highest administrative court. It decides, as the court of last instance questions regarding the lawfulness and fairness of administrative decisions.

The administrative court issues appeal instructions in connection with its decisions.

If the appellant loses his case, he may incur liability to compensate the private party opposing him at the trial for his legal costs. This is the case if it is deemed unreasonable to make the opposing party bear his own costs. Losing a case does, in other words, not automatically result in a liability to compensate the other party for his legal costs.

The appellant shall be liable for the costs of a public corporation in exceptional cases only, mainly if the court considers that he has actually abused the means of legal protection.

If the appellant wins his case in an administrative court, the authority that has made the challenged decision may be ordered to compensate the appellant for his litigation expenses. In this case, too, it is required to show that it would be unreasonable to make the appellant bear his own costs. In addition, it must be established that the proceedings have been caused by an error made by the authority. The appellant is thus not always compensated for his expenses even if he wins his case.

In order for compensation to be awarded, a claim shall be presented. The compensation may be awarded either in full or in part.

If the appellant loses his case in an administrative court, he must, for example in municipal and environmental matters, pay the State a litigation fee. In certain types of matters, such as taxation matters and most social welfare matters, no litigation fee is collected.

A private person is usually able to conduct his affairs before administrative authorities without legal aid. It may, however, be wise to obtain legal aid when making an appeal against a decision of an administrative authority.

Legal aid is provided by lawyers, legal aid counsels working in State legal aid offices or other lawyers. The work of lawyers and legal aid counsels is subject to supervision.

The granting of legal aid from State funds is decided upon application by a State legal aid office. Cost-free legal proceedings are applied for in an administrative court.

Giving evidence is a civic duty: a witness must always appear before the court unless he has a legal excuse (for example a doctor’s certificate of an illness). The court must be notified of the legal excuse.

To start with, the witness takes an oath or gives a corresponding affirmation.

In court a witness has to tell everything he knows of the matter in question unless this is prevented by the witness’ right or obligation to remain silent. The witness has to tell the truth. If it is established that a witness has lied or concealed a material fact, he will be charged with perjury. A person found guilty of perjury is normally sentenced to imprisonment.

A close relative of a party does not have to give evidence against his will. But if the close relative agrees to testify, he, too, must tell the truth.

Where necessary, the Chairman of the Court will explain to the witness when he can refuse to answer a question. A witness is for example not obliged to disclose circumstances that may result in charges being brought against him or his close relative. Nor does he have to reveal a business or professional secret unless specifically so ordered by the court.

A witness is entitled to a reasonable compensation for his necessary travel and subsistence expenses and for loss of income. The witness fee is usually paid by the private party that has called the witness or by the authority whose decision is subject to the appeal. The compensation to a witness called by a private individual can be paid from State funds if his testimony has been material for deciding the matter.

The fee to a witness called by a party who has been granted legal aid or cost-free proceedings is paid from State funds.