SUPREMEADMINISTRATIVE COURT

ANNUAL REPORT 2005

■

■

■

Publications of the Supreme Administrative Court 1/2006

Cover: Court room for plenary sessions

SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

ANNUAL REPORT 2005

| 4 |

| 5 |

CONTENTS

| 6 | Access to justice, welfare and competitiveness Pekka Hallberg President of the Supreme Administrative Court

| 8 | Activities in 2005

| 12 | Climate change and administrative judicial procedure – Cases concerning greenhouse gas emission allowance trading

Kari Kuusiniemi Justice

| 14 | Public procurement Ahti Rihto Justice

| 16 | Child welfare cases Niilo Jääskinen Justice

| 18 | Cooperation between administrative courts – from plans to action Timo Ahvenniemi Project Manager

| 21 | Organisation and personnel of the Supreme Administrative Court on 31 December 2005

| 24 | Administrative appeal system

| 25 | Statistics

| 6 |

ACCESS TO JUSTICE, WELFARE

AND COMPETITIVENESS

Pekka HallbergPresident

of the Supreme Administrative Court

lthough the administration of justice is often understood as simply meaning the resolution of prob-lems, a functioning judiciary at the same time constitutes the foundation of a state governed by the rule of law, and the essential basis for the development of welfare and competitiveness. Th e Administrative Courts Day of 2005 focused on these topics.

In 2005, there were particular reasons for highlighting the developments of the adminis-trative judicial procedure. Th e former county administrative courts had been created 50 years earlier, in 1955. Th e existing regional administra-tive courts have, as the fi rst judicial instance of appeal in administrative law cases, strong tradi-tions and a status guaranteed by the Constitu-tion. Th e regional administrative courts and the Supreme Administrative Court thus constitute an established two-instance system of general administrative courts, which is typical of most Member States of the European Union (EU). In addition, there are two special courts examining administrative law cases, the Insurance Court and the Market Court.

The Finnish judicial system is consistent with the basic European principles. Th is is also important in view of Finland’s EU membership, considering that a major part of Community law is characterised as being public law. Th ere have been no problems in adapting the Finnish legal culture to the new requirements and, at the same time, it has been possible for the Finnish courts to actively contribute to the development of Com-munity law.

Another important step was taken in 1950, i.e. 55 years ago when a general right of appeal was established by law. Th is right of appeal concerns decisions of both lower and higher administrative authorities, including those of the Government and Ministries. Consequently, in respect of the

right of appeal, adherence to the prin-ciples of the European Convention on Human Rights has not been a problem in Finland. Th e existing provisions on the right of appeal are included in the Constitution and in the Administrative

Judicial Procedure Act of 1996.As the general right of appeal is one of the

basic elements of access to justice, there are cases coming to administrative courts from all sectors and hierarchical levels of administration. When compared with other countries, the Finnish ad-ministrative courts have a relatively extensive ju-risdiction. Th eir decisions often have far-reaching eff ects on society: cases concerning the environ-ment contribute to the development of our living surroundings, cases concerning taxation to the functioning of the system of taxation in general, and cases concerning social welfare and health care to the overall development of these sectors, for example.

In accordance with the principle that all deci-sions be based on law, inherent in the rule of law, the legislature plays a key role in the setting of general rights and duties. In view of the need to en-sure the protection of citizens by law, it is essential that the legislation is clear and unambiguous. In 2005, the Government introduced a programme aiming at better legislation and more consistent legal policy. Th e large amount of legislation and the complicated wordings used in legislative acts constitute challenges in this respect. Furthermore, the fact that legislation is prepared in diff erent sec-tors of administration and the limits of the state budget render long-term legal policy diffi cult.

For the purpose of the foreseeability of the ap-plication of legislation, the eff ects of legislative acts should be assessed as thoroughly as possible, and attention should be paid not only to their fi nancial implications, but also to their clarity and eff ects on society. Th e administrative courts need to resolve

A

| 7 |

problems in the application of legislation, creating thereby a basis for the functioning of the system in general. The legislation concerning public administration is character-ised by constant change and expansion to new categories of cases, which increases the expectations concerning ad-ministrative courts.

Th e highest courts have, under the Constitution, a particular duty of supervising the administra-tion of justice in their own fi elds of competence. Th is entails a duty to participate in and assume responsibility for the development of the judiciary. In practice, the duty of supervision means coop-eration with a view to enhancing the consistency and expediency of the administration of justice as well as to ensuring the adequacy of the resources of courts and the development of personnel. In the cooperation between administrative courts, attention has been paid to the quality of the ad-ministration of justice, the length of proceedings, and the development of training.

In 2005, particular eff orts were made to de-velop the cooperation between the administrative courts and the fi rst common report on opera-tions of the administrative courts was published, concerning the year 2004. Th e report addressed the perspectives of the work and development of administrative courts as well as certain recent legislative reforms. In 2005, new questions of interpretation of law were also raised, among oth-ers, by the new provisions of the Aliens Act, the changes in the taxation on corporate and capital income, the reform of the system of appeal under the Church Act, the Communications Market Act, the Emissions Trading Act, the reform of employment pension schemes, the introduction of

guarantees of access to the assessment of need for medical care, and the transposition of Direc-tive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the fi eld of water policy.

In the same way as earlier, the present annual report addresses the administration of justice and other activities of the Supreme Administrative Court. Insofar as the Court’s workload is concerned, the situation improved in 2005. The number of decided cases was somewhat larger than that of new cases, which contributed to more expedient proceedings. Th e statistics included in the annual report cover more than 200 categories of cases.

A possibility to have errors corrected at the earliest possible stage is essential in view of the protection of citizens by law. For this purpose, good administration and fair administration of justice constitute the general framework. Th us, the signifi cance of the decisions of administra-tive courts for society must also be assessed in the context of the numerous categories of cases representing diff erent sectors of administra-tion. When objectives of productivity are set for public authorities, attention must also be paid to the resources of courts. Trust in justice is one of the basic elements of the development of society. ❖

| 8 |

New casesA total of 3,931 new cases were fi led with the

Supreme Administrative Court in 2005. Of these,

3,670 were appeals or requests for leave to appeal

and 261 were petitions, the largest group being

requests for the annulment of judgment.

Under the Constitution of Finland, the Su-

preme Administrative Court exercises the highest

judicial powers in administrative law cases. Most

appeals, requests for leave to appeal, and petitions

to the Supreme Administrative Court are made

concerning decisions of regional administrative

courts. Appeal to general administrative courts is

possible from decisions of state and local authori-

ties, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church and the

Orthodox Church. As a rule, appeal is most often

fi rst made to a regional administrative court and

further to the Supreme Administrative Court.

However, in respect of specifi c subject-matters,

appeal shall be made to a special court, such as the

Market Court and the Insurance Court. In cases

concerning competition restrictions and procure-

ments, appeal against the decision of the Market

Court may be lodged with the Supreme Adminis-

trative Court. As for the decisions of the Insurance

Court, it is only possible to lodge extraordinary

appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court,

on the ground of a procedural error.

New cases by category

Th e shares of diff erent categories of new cases

were as follows: social welfare and health care cases

amounted to 20 per cent; taxation cases 17 per

cent; immigration and asylum cases 16 per cent;

building cases 13 per cent; governmental func-

tions and other general administrative law cases

9 per cent; cases concerning economic activities,

transport and communications 8 per cent; envi-

ronmental cases 8 per cent; and self-government

cases 8 per cent of all new cases.

For the purpose of developing a system of

follow-up, a new classifi cation of the diff erent

categories of cases was introduced in 2005, to be

used by both the Supreme Administrative Court and the regional administrative courts

New cases by authority

Th e number of cases of appeals against decisions

of the afore-mentioned administrative courts,

made to the Supreme Administrative Court, was

3,327 in 2005, which constituted 85 per cent of all

the new cases. In addition, there were 169 cases

originating from the review boards, 127 from the

Government and Ministries, 50 from the Market

Court, 29 from the central state agencies, and 18

from the provincial state offi ces. Th ere were also

12 cases originating from the Insurance Court,

and 8 from the regional environment centres.

Decided cases

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court

issued a fi nal decision in 4,009 cases.

In 70 per cent of the decided cases, the chal-

lenged decision was upheld, and in 13 per cent of

the cases the statement of reasons was changed,

whereas in 8 per cent of the cases the challenged

decision was amended and in 5 per cent of the

cases it was referred back to the lower authority

for reconsideration, and 4 per cent of the cases

were declared inadmissible.

Th e average length of proceedings in respect

of the decided cases was 10.6 months, and the

median was 9.3 months. Th e average length of

proceedings was the longest in environmental and

ACTIVITIES IN 2005

| 9 |

water rights cases, being 14.9 months, whereas it

was the shortest in immigration and asylum cases,

7.2 months. Th e median in the latter category of

cases was 6 months.

In order to establish the facts of a case, the

Supreme Administrative Court may arrange an

on-site inspection or an oral hearing if necessary.

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court

held two oral hearings and arranged two on-site

inspections.

At the end of 2005, there were 3,095 cases

pending before the Supreme Administrative

Court. This number decreased from the cor-

responding number in 2004, i.e. 3,167, reducing

thus the Court’s workload to some extent.

No general system of leave to appeal

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court de-

cided 1,425 cases of request for leave to appeal, of

which 17 per cent were admitted.

Th e majority of the categories of cases handled

by the Supreme Administrative Court are not

subject to the requirement of leave to appeal. As a

rule, therefore, the parties have a right to appeal,

and the Supreme Administrative Court issues a

decision on merits.

Th e most important categories of cases where,

under the applicable law, a request for leave to ap-

peal must be fi led, are taxation, immigration and

asylum, and certain social welfare and health care

| 10 |

ACTIVITIES IN 2005

cases. Leave to appeal may, however, be granted

on various grounds, and not exclusively because

of a need to issue a precedent.

References for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the EC

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court

submitted two references for a preliminary ruling

to the Court of Justice of the European Commu-

nities. In the fi rst case (C-50/05, Maija Nikula),

the reference for a preliminary ruling related to the

assessment of sickness insurance contributions,

and in the second case (C-231/05, Oy Esab), the

reference concerned the deductibility of a group

subsidy in the taxation of a parent company. In

the years 1996 to 2005, a total of 41 references for

a preliminary ruling have been submitted by the

Finnish courts, of which fourteen originate from

the Supreme Administrative Court.

Legal opinions

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court gave

eleven legal opinions. Th e opinions concerned the

composition of administrative courts, the Public

Procurement Act, the system of appeal concern-

ing environmental permits, the Communications

Market Act, the tax assessment procedure, the

development of administration in the fi eld of en-

vironment, the examination of cases concerning

intellectual property rights before courts of law,

the environmental impact assessment procedure,

the Aliens Act, the publicity of court proceedings,

and the municipality of residence.

Precedents and summaries of cases

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court

published 90 precedents in the yearbook. On

the Court’s web site, brief summaries were also

published of 96 other cases.

Since 1918, the most important cases of the

Supreme Administrative Court have been pub-

lished in the Court’s yearbook. Th ose cases have

relevance for the application of law in similar cases

or involve otherwise a signifi cant interest.

Th e aforementioned precedents, which will

be included in the yearbook, are published on the

Court’s web site (http://www.kho.fi and http://

www.hfd.fi ) already on the date of their issue.

Furthermore, precedents issued by the Supreme

Administrative Court are available in the Finlex

database of Finnish legislation (http://www.

fi nlex.fi ) maintained by the State, of which the

oldest ones were given as early as in 1944. Th ere

is a link from each precedent to its brief Swedish

summary.

International cooperation

Th e Supreme Administrative Court participates

in both regional and worldwide cooperation be-

tween supreme administrative jurisdictions.

In the Association of the Councils of State

and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the

European Union (Association des Conseils d’Etat

et des Juridictions administratives suprêmes de

l’Union européenne), the participating courts may

exchange information and experiences on Com-

munity law. Th e Association provides training,

publishes legal reports, maintains a database of

case law and organises, every two years, a congress

on a topic of interest relating to Community law.

Th e website of the Association is available at

http://193.191.217.21/.

For the purposes of worldwide cooperation,

the supreme administrative jurisdictions have

| 11 |

established another association, the International

Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdic-

tions (Association Internationale des Hautes

Juridictions Administratives). Th e association

compiles information on developments of law and

organises a congress every three years. Th e website

of the association is available at www.iasaj.org/.

In addition, the Supreme Administrative

Court participates in cooperation coordinated by

the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe,

working for democracy, human rights and the rule

of law (www.venice.coe.int).

The Supreme Administrative Court has

continued its traditional cooperation with the

supreme administrative jurisdiction of Sweden

(Regeringsrätten). Th e supreme jurisdictions of

the Nordic Countries have held regular meetings

alternately in one of the countries. Th e Supreme

Administrative Court has also had cooperation

with the supreme jurisdictions of Russia, China

and the Baltic States, among others.

Visits to the Supreme Administrative Court

In May 2005, the ambassadors accredited to

Helsinki gathered at the Supreme Administra-

tive Court for a seminar, “Finnish Courts and the

Internationalisation of the Legal System”.

In 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court

has been visited by representatives of Parliament

and the Offi ce of the Chancellor of Justice. Th ere

were also visits made from other countries: China,

Sri Lanka and Hungary.

Th e Supreme Administrative Court has con-

tinued to cooperate with universities, and several

groups of university students have been given pres-

entations of the administrative judicial procedure.

Editors in chief and other media professionals have

also visited the Supreme Administrative Court in

2005. ❖

| 12 |

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL

PROCEDURE - CASES CONCERNING GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSION ALLOWANCE TRADING

t is an established practice to apply the administrative judicial procedure to cases concerning traditional environ-mental protection, i.e. the protection of air and waters as well as noise abate-ment and waste management. Climate change, however, is a new environmental threat raising worldwide concerns. It is feared that upon the heating up of the Earth, the climate system will change so that the land glaciers and ice sheets melt, the vegetation zones change, the number of weather extremes increase and the sea level rises above low-lying coastal areas.

Th e climate change is accelerated by the so-called anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Th e most important one of such gases is carbon dioxide. Energy and manu-facturing industries using fossil fuels constitute important sources of emissions. Th e eff ects of carbon dioxide emissions cannot be compared with those of sulphur or nitrogen dioxides, for example, which have harmful eff ects on health and vegetation in the range of infl uence of the emission source and the eff ects of which may be controlled by incineration techniques and purifi cation equip-ment. Th e direct eff ects of carbon dioxide are not harmful as such and they cannot be avoided by means of fi ltering. With regard to the greenhouse eff ects, there is no diff erence if the emissions take place in Helsinki or Rovaniemi, or in Finland or South-Africa.

Th us, new means have been introduced to address the new type of environmental threat caused by greenhouse gases. Th e objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change of 1992 is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthro-pogenic interference with the climate system. In the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 to the Framework Convention, industrial countries and countries

undergoing the process of transition to a market economy undertake to concretely reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Th e overall emissions of such gases should be reduced by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the com-

mitment period 2008 to 2012. Th is means that the EU Member States, for example, must jointly reduce their emissions by 8 per cent. In respect of the EU Member States, Directive 2003/87/EC establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. Th e Directive has been transposed in Finland with the Emissions Trading Act (683/2004). Th e purpose is to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emis-sions in a cost-eff ective and economically effi cient manner. Th e Emissions Trading Act applies to the activities of energy industries and steel, mineral and forestry industries as listed in the Act.

The emission allowance trading creates a market for greenhouse gas emissions that were earlier free of charge, and defi nes a price for the emissions. In Finland, the allowances for the three-year period 2005 to 2007 were allocated to the installations free of charge on the basis of the quantities of their earlier emissions. Th e introduc-tion of new activities or an extension of activities requires an allowance for additional greenhouse gas emissions. Th e purpose of the emission allow-ance trading scheme is to reduce emissions, which is why the total quantity of allowances allocated for the period 2005 to 2007, including a reservation for new entrants, is approximately 3 per cent less than the estimated quantity of emissions during that period would be. Th e Emissions Trading Act is of great signifi cance for the selection of energy sources and the establishment of energy-intensive industries.

On 19 August 2004, the Government gave its proposal for a national allocation plan on the basis of allocation criteria set out in the Act. When

Kari KuusiniemiJustice

I

| 13 |

preparing the proposal, the Ministry of Trade and Industry requested opinions from operators of installations, authorities and other relevant bodies. Th e operators had provided information on their installations and applied for emission allowances. After the European Commission had accepted the proposal, the Government made its decision on the allocation of the allowance to the operator of each installation on 21 December 2004.

There were 12 appeals made against the Government’s decision to the Supreme Admin-istrative Court. Th e fi rst chamber of the Court decided the cases in its normal composition of fi ve justices, and they were prepared by two rap-porteurs. Under the Emissions Trading Act, the appeals had to be examined urgently. With the exception of one case, in which the appeal was withdrawn, the decisions were given at the same time on 1 July 2005.

Th e appeals were made by operators of in-stallations who requested additional emission allowances. Th e Government’s decision could not be appealed from to the extent that it concerned the total quantity of emission allowances or the share reserved for new entrants. Th e appeals made concerned, among others, the application of the provisions on the adjustment of the amount of allowances (e.g. KHO 2005:46, which was one of the two published cases) and the treatment of a district heating network as one entity (KHO 2005:47). In its decisions, the Supreme Admin-istrative Court assessed the preparatory work of the Emissions Trading Act profoundly and also referred to the provisions of the aforemen-tioned Directive. In both cases, the appeals were dismissed for the reason that the Government’s decision was found to be in conformity with the allocation criteria provided for in the Act. In a few other cases, the Government’s decision was partly repealed (as the Government had failed to decide on the application for adjustment of the amount of allowances made by certain energy installations, and had erred in respect of the sector of activity of one industrial installation connected to a district heating network). In some of the appeals, the Supreme Administra-tive Court was requested to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, however, the ap-plication of allocation criteria to individual cases did not involve such questions of interpretation of Community law as would have made it necessary to make a reference. ❖

| 14 |

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Ahti RihtoJustice

he Public Procurement Act (1505

/1992) provides for a requirement

of equal and non-discriminatory

treatment of those who participate

in a tendering procedure, and for the

contract procedures, the selection of a candidate or

a tenderer and the awarding of contracts, and the

legal remedies. Th e provisions of the Act require

contracting entities, under the threat of a sanction,

to invite tenders and to decide on the award of a

contract in accordance with criteria set out in the

invitation to tender. Th e Public Procurement Act

and two decrees supplementing the Act transpose

the sector-specifi c Community directives coordi-

nating the procurement and review procedures.

Th e decrees are applied to contracts exceeding

a threshold value, equalling a certain minimum

amount of euro and, when compared with the

Act, they contain more far-reaching and detailed

provisions concerning the contract procedures.

Th e legislation concerning public

procurement regulates the procedures

to be applied. Th e Act imposes an ob-

ligation on the contracting authorities

or other entities to apply its provisions

subject to certain conditions set out in the Act. Th e

provisions on the award of contracts are applied

to the relation between the contracting entity and

the candidate or tenderer. Th e provisions also have,

however, eff ects among the tenderers. Th e applica-

tion of the provisions on the award of contracts has

no direct implications on the law of contracts or

civil law in general.

Th e fi rst-hand legal remedy available to ten-

derers is to submit a petition to the Market Court,

with a view to having a sanction ordered on the

contracting entity. Under the Act, a petition to the

Market Court may be made by a party concerned,

which in practice means a tenderer. Th e Act also

provides for the right of action of the Ministry of

T

| 15 |

Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Finance and

the public authority that has granted contract-

specifi c aid for the implementation of the works

contract in question. The Market Court may

wholly or partly set aside a decision of a contract-

ing entity, forbid the contracting entity to apply a

section in a document relating to the contract or

otherwise pursue an incorrect procedure, require

the contracting entity to correct its incorrect

procedure, or order the contracting entity to pay

a compensation to a party who would have had

an actual chance of winning the contract if the

procedure had been correct.

Under the Public Procurement Act, a case

falling within the competence of the Market

Court may not be appealed pursuant to the Lo-

cal Government Act and Administrative Judicial

Procedure Act on the grounds that the decision is

against the Public Procurement Act. Th is means

that the Market Court only examines whether

the provisions of public procure-

ment legislation have been violated

but not, for example, whether a

procedural error has taken place

due to the disqualifi cation of the

offi cials who made the decision

concerning the award of contract.

Subject to the provisions of the

Public Procurement Act, the

Administrative Judicial Procedure

Act shall in other respects apply to

the handling of the matter before

the Market Court.

Th e decision of the Market Court may be

appealed from to the Supreme Administrative

Court, in accordance with the provisions of the

Administrative Judicial Procedure Act. In 2005,

a total of 49 new cases concerning public pro-

curement became pending before the Supreme

Administrative Court, and the Court delivered

46 decisions on appeal. The cases concerning

public procurement are characterised by largely

diff ering and often complex questions of fact and

law. Very often, the legislation only provides the

basis and guidelines for legal assessment. Th e

most relevant basis for decision-making is the case

law of the European Court of Justice. Th e cases

concerning public procurement usually need to be

examined without delay, and it is often necessary

to give interim orders. Furthermore, these cases

often involve signifi cant fi nancial interests. Th e

volume of public contracts awarded in Finland is

estimated to constitute 10 to 15 per cent of the

gross national product.

New Community directives concerning

public contracts enter into force in 2006. Th ese

directives require an overall reform of the Finn-

ish legislation on public procurement by which

the earlier directives have been transposed. In

practice, however, there will be no signifi cant or

fundamental changes to the application of the

administrative judicial procedure in this respect.

Th e reform mainly means that certain legal inter-

pretations that are now based on the case law of

the European Court of Justice will be included in

legislative provisions. ❖

| 16 |

CHILD WELFARE CASES

nder the Child Welfare Act,

the local social welfare board is

responsible for deciding, as the fi rst-

instance authority, on the public care

of a child. Th e social welfare board is

under an obligation to take the child into care

and provide for appropriate substitute care if

the child’s health or development is seriously

endangered by lack of care or other conditions at

home, or if the child seriously endangers his or

her health or development by abuse of intoxicants,

by committing an illegal act other than a minor

off ence, or by any other comparable behaviour.

A further condition for substitute care is that

assistance referred to in the Child Welfare Act

is not appropriate or possible or has proved to be

inadequate. In addition, the substitute care must

be in the best interests of the child.

According to statistical data, there were 8,673

children in public care in 2004. Of them, 20

per cent i.e. 1,740 children had been taken into

care involuntarily. Th us, in 80 per cent of cases

neither the parents nor the child, provided that

he or she is at least twelve years old, had objected

to the public care. Apart from the public care

orders, the social welfare board is responsible,

under the Child Welfare Act, for deciding on

the termination of public care or on a change in

the substitute care.

A public care order means a strong inter-

ference with the protection of family life. Th e

decision of the social welfare board must be

referred to a regional administrative court for

review if the person responsible for the child’s

custody, or the child provided that he or she is at

least twelve years old, objects to the public care.

Th e administrative court gives at the

same time its decision on a possible

appeal made from the decision of the

social welfare board. In urgent cases,

a temporary public care order may be

given without referral to the administrative court.

However, such a care order expires, at the latest,

14 days after the order has been given, unless a

normal public care order is given to extend the

public care. Th e requirement of referral to the

administrative court also applies in this case to

the normal care order. In cases concerning child

welfare, the composition of the administrative

court includes an expert member specialised in

child welfare.

Appeal from the decision of the regional ad-

ministrative court may be made by a person hav-

ing custody over the child, a parent (even where

he or she has no custody), a person who is or has

been responsible for the child’s care and educa-

tion immediately prior to the preparation of the

decision, or the child himself or herself provided

that he or she is at least twelve years old. Th e ap-

peal may concern a public care order, placement

in substitute care, or termination of public care.

Th e decision of the regional administrative court

given upon review of an objected decision of the

social welfare board may be appealed from to

the Supreme Administrative Court even where

no prior appeal has been made against the social

welfare board’s decision to the regional admin-

istrative court.

In 2005, there were 223 cases concerning

child welfare examined by the Supreme Ad-

ministrative Court. Most appeals concerned

a public care order and, usually, the appellant

Niilo JääskinenJustice

U

| 17 |

either denied the need for public care or consid-

ered that the provision of assistance for the family

would have been suffi cient or possible. In some

cases, the appeal was related to the refusal by a

social welfare board to terminate public care, or

to a decision entailing a change of substitute care.

In the latter case, appeal may also be made by a

substitute parent.

In child welfare cases, the Supreme Admin-

istrative Court also takes the development of the

child’s situation after the public care order into

account. Th e trend in child welfare cases seems

to be that the facts of the cases are increasingly

more complex than before, concerning for example

the child’s mental health. In the decisions of the

Supreme Administrative Court, attention has

been paid not only to whether the conditions for

public care exist but also, in particular, to whether

the parties have been appropriately heard by the

social welfare board and the regional administra-

tive court. Th e primary concern in child welfare

cases is, in any circumstances, to ensure that the

decision is in the best interests of the child.

Issues relating to child welfare may also come

up in cases of disputes between local authorities

concerning the reimbursement of the costs of child

welfare. In such cases, leave to appeal is required.

Where leave to appeal is granted, it is usually

important to examine where the need for public

care has fi rst appeared. ❖

| 18 |

COOPERATION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

– FROM PLANS TO ACTION

Timo Ahvenniemi

Project ManagerSupreme

Administrative Court

nder the Constitution, the Supreme Administrative Court has a duty to supervise the administra-tion of justice in its own fi eld of com-petence. Th e other courts examining administrative law cases include eight regional administrative courts and the Adminis-trative Court of the Åland Islands, as well as the Market Court and the Insurance Court. In view of its supervisory role, the Supreme Administra-tive Court has also assumed responsibility for coordinating cooperation between the adminis-trative courts. Th e cooperation has become more intensive as the Supreme Administrative Court introduced a particular project for this purpose in the spring of 2004.

A fi rst meeting between the chief judges of administrative courts was held on 1 March 2005. Th e meeting was chaired by the President of the Supreme Administrative Court and attended by the chief judges of the regional administra-tive courts, the Market Court and the Insurance Court. One of the issues discussed in the meet-ing was the fi rst common report on operations of the administrative courts, concerning the year 2004. Th e reports on operations should gradually develop into a tool for the administrative courts to provide information on the situation of the ad-ministration of justice and the required resources, for the purposes of the State budget and fi nal accounts.

On 9 May 2005, the chief judges had, for the fi rst time, preliminary budget discussions with officials representing the Ministry of Justice, concerning the resources and objectives of the administrative courts for the year 2006. Similar discussions were held for the general courts of law and the Labour Court. Th ese discussions with the Ministry of Justice are still under development.

A steering group designated for the initial

stage of the cooperation project set up four working groups to prepare reports to the Supreme Administra-tive Court. Th ese reports, delivered on 11 November 2005, focused on the following issues:

- Factors of quality at administrative courts (working group chaired by Chief Judge Hannu Renvall),

- Compilation of information on quality (working group chaired by Justice Pekka Viher-vuori),

- Objectives concerning the length of pro-ceedings at administrative courts (working group chaired by Justice Pirkko Ignatius), and

- Continuing training at administrative courts (working group chaired by Chief Judge Heikki Jukarainen).

The reports of the working groups were

U

| 19 |

discussed in a meeting of the chief judges on 15 November 2005, which was also attended by a representative of the Administrative Court of the Åland Islands. Th e meeting decided to continue cooperation between the administrative courts as proposed in the reports. Among the most impor-tant issues was agreement on systematic coopera-tion in the monitoring of quality as of 1 January 2006. An agreement was also reached to set up a new working group to coordinate training but its designation was postponed until the meeting of the chief judges in February 2006. As a pilot project, however, one-day training was already arranged in the autumn of 2005. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court organised extensive training for regional administrative courts in the develop-ment of public information services.

As to the cooperation of quality, the purpose is to monitor seven factors of quality in order to

form an overall picture of the present quality of the administration of justice. Th ese factors relate to the extent to which appeal is made from deci-sions, the establishment of the facts of the case, the holding of oral hearings and the direct hearing of parties, the extent to which the decisions subject to appeal are amended by the Supreme Administra-tive Courts, the clarity and readability of decisions, the length of proceedings, and the eff ectiveness of extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Admin-istrative Court.

Th e chairpersons of the aforementioned work-ing groups presented the contents of their reports to the audience of the Administrative Courts Day organised by the Supreme Administrative Court on 16 November 2005 in the main building of the University of Helsinki. All judges and rapporteurs of the administrative courts had been invited to the Administrative Courts Day.

| 20 |

Both in 2004 and 2005, the audience of the Administrative Courts Day has been addressed by persons representing important sectors of so-ciety. In 2005, the speakers of the Administrative Courts Day included, among others, Speaker of Parliament Paavo Lipponen, Director General of the Confederation of Finnish Industries Leif

Th e common reports on operations of the administrative courts, the reports of the working groups, the memorandum concerning the initial stage of the project, and addresses given at the Administrative Courts Days have been published on the website of the Supreme Administrative Court (at www.kho.fi -> Hallintotuomioistuimet).

COOPERATION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS –

FROM PLANS TO ACTION

Fagernäs, Director General of the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities Risto Parjanne, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance Raimo Sailas, Chancellor of the University of Helsinki Kari Raivio, and, as a foreign guest, President Eckart Hien from Bundesverwaltungsgericht, the highest admin-istrative jurisdiction of Germany, who is also the chairman of the Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdic-tions of the European Union.

In 2005, the cooperation between the ad-ministrative courts became more intensive and started to gain established forms. Th e Supreme Administrative Court bears the responsibility for the coordination of cooperation but all the courts participating in it are strongly commit-ted to the cooperation. Despite the intensive cooperation, it must be borne in mind that each court is also independent with regard to other courts. Common management of qual-ity or further training does not mean that the Supreme Administrative Court aims at exer-cising infl uence on individual proceedings in other courts, but the purpose is that each court participating in the cooperation will have tools to develop its own work. Th is way, the protec-tion aff orded by the administrative courts can be further improved. ❖

| 21 |

he Supreme Court has three chambers. Th e fi rst chamber focuses, among others, on cases concerning local government, building and planning, environmental permits, real property, waste management, water rights, roads, nature conservation, Natura, extraction of land resources, general administrative law, access to documents, agriculture and forestry, and structural funds of the European Union.

Th e second chamber examines, among others, cases concerning taxation, customs, competition, economic activities, population register, driver’s licences and other issues relating to vehicles, traf-fi c, management of companies, pharmacies, labour administration, and state offi cials.

Th e third chamber focuses, among others, on cases concerning social welfare, immigration and asylum, public care of children and child welfare, nationality, patents and registration, Church law, services for persons with disabilities, mental health, health care and medical care, public health, education, public order and entertainment, and fi rearms.

Th e chambers do not, however, exclusively handle cases concerning these subject-matters but may examine any types of cases falling within the Court’s jurisdiction. Such exceptions may be made e.g. during holidays or for the reason of absences because of sickness.

Th e cases before the Supreme Administrative Court are decided by chambers composed of fi ve judges, upon presentation by a rapporteur.

In cases referred to in the Water Act and in the Environmental Protection Act as well as in

cases concerning certain intellectual property rights such as patents, the chamber is composed of the judges and two expert members having competence in the relevant fi eld.

Th e fi rst chamber was presided from 1 January until 30 September 2005 and the third chamber from 1 October until 31 December 2005 by President Pekka Hallberg. Th e second chamber was presided in 2005 by Justice Ahti Rihto. Th e third chamber was presided from 1 January until 30 September 2005 and the fi rst chamber from 1 October until 31 December 2005 by Justice Ilmari Ojanen.

Th e judges of the Supreme Administrative Court include the President and twenty justices. Th e President of the Supreme Administrative Court since 1993 is Mr Pekka Hallberg, Doctor of Laws and Doctor of Political Science. In respect of changes in the Court’s members, it is worth noting that Justice Heikki Kanninen was appointed Judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in August 2005, and Matti Pellonpää, Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, was appointed Justice of the Supreme Administrative Court in August 2005.

The Supreme Administrative Court has approximately 40 rapporteurs and 40 other em-ployees. Th ey are headed by the Secretary Gen-eral, Mr Sakari Vanhala. Until 31 March 2005, Virpi Koivu worked for the Court as temporary head of the information service. Apart from the permanent personnel, there are expert counsellors working on a part-time basis and, when necessary, temporary personnel. ❖

ORGANISATION AND PERSONNEL OF THE SUPREME

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ON 31 DECEMBER 2005

T

| 22 |

President

Pekka Hallberg

Justices

Ahti Rihto, Ilmari Ojanen, Olof Olsson, Esa Aalto, Pirkko Ignatius, Lauri Tarasti, Raimo Anttila, Tuulikki Keltanen, Marita Liljeström, Olli Nykänen, Pekka Vihervuori, Marjatta Kaján, Heikki Kanninen (on leave), Kari Kuusiniemi, Niilo Jääskinen, Ilkka Pere, Ahti Vapaavuori,

Irma Telivuo, Jukka Mattila, Matti Pellonpää (on leave)

Temporary Justices

Anne E. Niemi, Eila Rother, Matti Halén, Tuula Pynnä

Expert Counsellors on the Environment

Pertti Vakkilainen, Pentti Hannonen, Ilkka Hirsto, Heikki Kiuru, Pertti Seuna, Pertti Eloranta, Janne Hukkinen, Juha Kämäri, Mikael Hildén, Leena Nurmento

Chief Engineering Counsellors

Pentti Uuspää, Allan Johansson, Matti Kleimola, Kenneth Holmberg, Raimo Sepponen

Secretary General

Sakari Vanhala

Referendary Counsellors

Ilpo Havumäki, Marina Äimä, Matti Metsäranta, Tuulia Riikonen, Hannu Ranta, Leena Halila (on leave), Eila Rother (on leave), Kristina Björkvall, Riitta Mutikainen

Senior Judicial Secretaries

Kai Träskelin, Kari Honkala, Marja-Terttu Savolainen, Anne E. Niemi (on leave), Marjo Snellman, Anneli Tulikallio, Marja Ihto, Marja-Liisa Judström, Liisa Tähtinen, Arja Niemelä, Mikko Rautamaa, Hannele Klemettinen

Judicial Secretaries

Raimo Viitasaari, Kari Nieminen, Irene Mäenpää, Marja Leena Kemppainen, Leo Kaasinen, Riitta Kreula,

PERSONNEL OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ON 31 DECEMBER 2005

| 23 |

Marita Eeva, Päivi Pietarinen (on leave), Satu Heikkilä (on leave), Petri Leinonen, Jaana Moilanen (on leave), Anne Nenonen, Elisabeth Vuorenhela, Petteri Leppikorpi, Minna Saarikoski, Tuula Pääkkönen

Temporary Judicial Secretaries

Lea Alén, Freja Häggblom, Kai Kokko, Henna Rintala, Camilla Sandström, Kristiina Toivila, Kaius Vuoristo

Head of the Information Service

Timo Ahvenniemi (on leave)

Temporary Head of the Information Service

Teuvo Arolainen

Data Service Lawyer

Pekka Tuominen

Data Expert

Marja Halttunen (on leave)

Registrar

Eeva Väänänen-Silén

Notaries

Vuokko Kantanen, Paula Kilponen, Piia Rautiala, Carita Rostiala, Marjatta Räsänen, Satu-Maarit Tarkkanen, Soili Tolvanen, Ritva Vähämaa

Budget Offi cer

Marja Klaavo

Data Analyst

Minna Ronkainen

Departmental Secretaries

Liisa Hartikainen, Eeva Ryytty, Anne Sahlman, Sinikka Savolainen, Kirsi Siltala (on leave), Kaarina Tallberg, Elina Tukiainen

Secretaries

Merja Ahlfors, Pirkko Heikkinen, Marjut Jaatinen, Mirja Johansson, Heli Kalajainen, Jussi-Pekka Kokkonen, Anneli Liukkonen, Liisa Martikainen,

Tuula Niilo-Rämä, Christina Nyberg, Tuula Pelkonen, Tarja Piho, Irma Reunanen (on leave), Maarit Romppanen, Anneli Ronimus, Vuokko Savolainen, Marja Tiihonen, Pia Toivonen, Raija Vuori, Jenny Öberg

Head of the Caretaker Service

Kari Joutsenlahti

Chief Offi ce Caretakers

Anssi Kaikko, Timo Rousku, Tapani Ruostela

Of the Court’s personnel, Departmental Secretary Eila Viitaniemi retired on 1 July 2005.

| 24 |

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SYSTEM

Provincial state offi ces

Local authorities

Tax adjustment boards,

tax authoritiesCentral state agencies, regional

councils and review boards

Evangelical-Lutheran Church,

and Orthodox Church

Environment centres

Competition AuthorityEnergy Market Authority

Communications Regulatory Authority

Local state government

Govermentand Ministries

Supreme Administrative Court

Insurance Court Market Court

Administrative Courts

Administrative Courts of Helsinki, Hämeenlinna, Kouvola, Kuopio,

Oulu, Rovaniemi, Turku and Vaasa and the Administrative Court of

the Åland Islands

| 25 |

New Decided Pendingcases cases cases

Total number of all cases

STATISTICS

CASES IN 1996–2005

DEVELOPMENT OF THE COURT’S CASELOAD IN 2001–2005

Newcases

Decided cases

Pending cases

number

4000

3000

2000

1000

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1996 4377 4526 2756

1997 3910 3852 2772

1998 4904 3565 4441

1999 4372 4701 4094

2000 3691 4574 3183

2001 3752 3612 3281

2002 4036 3778 3486

2003 3806 3879 3372

2004 3719 3848 3167

2005 3931 4009 3095

| 26 |

Taxation 17 %

Social welfare and health care 20 %

Immigration and asylum 16 %

Building 13 %

Environment 8 %

Governmental functions and general administrative law 9 %

Economic activities, transport and communications 8 %

Others 1 %

Self-government 8 %

NEW CASES BY SUBJECT-MATTER IN 2005

Governmental functions and general administrative law 363 9

Self-government 297 8

Immigration and asylum 633 16

Building 523 13

Environment 305 8

Social welfare and health care 787 20

Economic activities, transport and communications 331 8

Taxation 670 17

Others 22 1

Total 3931 100

Number2005

Percentage share2005

NUMBERS OF CASES BY SUBJECT-MATTER IN 2005Main categories of cases based on classifi cation introduced in 2005

| 27 |

Provincial state offi ces <1%

Administrative courts 85 %

Review boards 4%

Government and Ministries 3%

Market Court and Competition Council 1%

Central state agencies 1% Others 5%

Regional environment centres <1%

NEW CASES BY SOURCE AUTHORITY IN 2005

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Administrative courts 2798 3119 3091 3112 3327

Review boards 216 194 146 152 169

Government and Ministries 160 163 83 100 127

Market Court and Competition Council 45 64 57 63 50

Central state agencies 105 96 101 52 29

Provincial state offi ces 47 40 27 3 18

Regional environment centres 109 59 39 8 8

Water Court of Appeal 1 1 0 0 0

Others 271 300 262 229 203

Total 3752 4036 3806 3719 3931

NEW CASES BY SOURCE AUTHORITY IN 2001–2005

| 28 |

Governmental functions and general administrative law

Self-government

Immigration and asylum

Building

Environment

Social welfare and health careEconomic activities, transport and communicationsTaxation

Others

All cases

Individuals

Private corporations

Public corporations

0 20 40 60 80 100 percent

Median

Average

Governmental functions and general administrative law

Self-government

Immigration and asylum

Building

Environment

Social welfare and health care

Economic activities, transport and communications

Taxation

Others

All cases

NEW CASES BY APPELLANT IN 2005

LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS IN 2005

months

10.311.3

12.9

12.7

67.2

8.18.9

14.915

7.89.6

13.613.4

9.510.6

15

15.1

9.310.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

| 29 |

Number

Challenged decision upheld 1621

Statement of reasons changed 534

Request for leave to appeal dismissed 1189

Challenged decision amended 312

Case referred back to lower authority 192

Case declared inadmissible 161

Total 4009

Percentage share 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1. Changed decision is upheld (including conclusions and statement of reasons) 27.5 27.6 29.8 29.2 32.4

2. Changed decision is upheld but the statement of reasons is changed 17 15.5 14.1 15.3 13.3

3. Changed decision is amended 8.1 7.6 6.4 8.1 7.4

4. Request for leave to appeal is dismissed 26.1 30.4 32.2 30.7 30.4

5. Case is referred back to the lower authority for reconsideration 5.6 4.7 3 3.9 4.8

6. Extraordinary appeal is admitted 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4

7. Extraordinary appeal is dismissed 6.1 6 6.1 5.5 5.1

8. Case is referred to the Government 0 0 0 0 0

9. Case is referred to another authority 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1

10. Case lapses 2 1.2 2.1 2.3 2

11. Case is declared inadmissible 6.6 6.3 5.2 4.6 4

OUTCOME OF DECIDED CASES

OUTCOME OF DECIDED CASES IN 2005

| 30 |

Challenged decision upheld 40 %

Statement of reasons changed 13 %

Challenged decision amended 8 %

Request for leave to appeal dismissed 30 %

Case declared inadmissible 4 %

Case referred back to lower authority 5 %

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005

Appeals 13 323 1525 1861

Requests for leave to appeal 1 1 12 111 863 988

Annulment of judgments 14 40 134 188

Restoration of lapsed time 3 5 8

Procedural complaints 1 19 23 43

Other petitions 2 5 7

Total 1 1 40 498 2555 3095

Pending at the end of the year

OUTCOME OF DECIDED CASES IN 2005

PENDING CASES AT THE END OF 2005 BY YEAR OF ARRIVAL

In the oldest pending cases, reference for a preliminary ruling has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

| 31 |

Governmental functions and general administrative law 294 363 320 254 30 21 10 5 3 333 11.3

Governmental functions 26 32 19 12 5 1 1 39 18.7

State elections 1 1 1 6.8

Cases under the Nationality Act 23 32 16 10 5 1 39 20.2

Citizens’ rights 1 1 1 8.2

Other governmental functions 1 1 1 16.1

General administrative law 150 179 180 134 25 12 5 4 2 146 11.4

Exemption from charges 4 5 6 6 3 8.2

Restitution and damages 4 3 3 3 4 6

Access to documents 47 60 54 43 1 9 1 1 52 13.9

Data protection 9 18 14 13 1 13 13.8

Discretionary and other state subsidies 7 13 4 2 1 1 16 10.8

Guardianship 27 8 23 12 11 11 11.6

Passports 2 2

Population register 3 8 4 3 1 7 11.6

Given name and family name 4 1 4 4 1 12.3

Granting of public legal aid, designation and reward of legal counsel 18 37 36 25 8 1 2 19 8.7

Change and withdrawal of a decision on public legal aid 3 2 3 3 2 8

Costs of legal proceedings 7 3 7 4 3 1 2 11.2

Inheritance by the state 2 2

Prison administration 3 2 1 1 4 19.5

Other administrative law cases 14 15 21 15 2 2 1 1 8 9.4

Education 22 31 24 22 2 1 28 11.4

School education 19 22 20 18 2 1 20 11.2

Vocational education 2 2 2 2 2 16.3

Polytechnics 1 1 1 6

Universities 1 5 1 1 5 11.6

Other cases relating to education 1 1

State offi cials 53 64 42 36 3 1 2 75 9.1

Employment 32 26 24 22 2 34 7

Remuneration, working hours and annual holidays 6 6 4 1 1 1 1 8 21.9

Other personnel cases 15 32 14 13 1 33 9

By subject-matter

WORKING STATISTICS OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN 2005

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 32 |

Labour relations 16 16 18 16 1 1 14 12.6

Security of pay and income 3 2 2 2 3 21.8

Industrial safety 1 2 1 1 2 10.2

Alternative civilian service 1 3 3 2 1 1 6

Labour market training for adults 1 1

Other labour relations cases 11 8 12 11 1 7 12.9

Public order and security and certain licences 27 41 37 34 1 1 1 31 9

Firearms 24 33 33 33 24 9.4

Other cases concerning public order and security and certain licences 3 8 4 1 1 1 1 7 5.8

Self-government 281 297 285 230 24 5 14 12 2 291 12.7

Åland Islands 5 4 9

Åland Islands if not in other categories 5 4 9

Local government 241 270 253 207 22 3 13 8 2 257 12.3

Local elections 2 11 11 9 2 2 7.3

Division into municipalities 1 1 1 17.7

Competence of municipalities 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 10.6

Finances of municipalities 9 7 11 11 5 14.5

Local regulations and service fees 5 3 5 5 3 15.1

Election of local authority offi cials (including joint municipal boards) 44 62 38 28 4 2 1 3 1 67 12

Employment (including joint municipal boards) 36 42 37 31 4 2 41 14.3

Remuneration, working hours and annual holidays (including joint municipal boards) 6 10 6 5 1 10 16.2

Other personnel cases (including joint municipal boards) 29 26 25 18 5 1 1 30 13.8

Other local government cases 104 109 114 96 7 1 7 3 1 98 11.4

Church law 33 21 30 21 2 2 1 4 24 15.9

Employment 13 14 13 9 4 14 14.4

Other personnel cases 6 3 5 4 1 4 18.6

Other Church law cases 14 4 12 8 1 2 1 6 16.4

Sámi 2 1 2 2 1 8.3

Cases other than those concerning Sámi Parliament elections 2 1 2 2 1 8.3

Immigration and asylum 246 633 513 454 13 25 8 13 3 363 7.2Residence permits on the basis of family reunifi cation 37 156 103 93 1 5 1 3 90 6.4

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 33 |

Other residence permits 24 54 39 30 2 4 2 1 39 8.1

Expulsion 16 31 22 17 3 2 1 24 9.2

Refusal of entry 9 18 12 7 1 1 3 15 11.8

Asylum 149 318 308 282 6 13 1 6 2 157 7.2

Asylum (accelerated procedure) 6 48 24 20 1 3 30 5.1

Alien’s passports and other travel documents 5 5 4 4 6 6.1

Other cases under the Aliens Act 3 1 1 2 4.9

Building 316 523 432 352 45 8 20 7 8 398 8.9

Land use and building 299 485 404 331 42 7 17 7 6 373 8.9

Regional plans 5 4 9

Local master plans 55 59 59 49 6 3 1 55 11

Local detailed plans 53 86 67 57 4 2 4 1 71 9.1

Detailed shore plans 12 13 16 11 4 1 9 12.6

Prohibitions and restrictions on land use and building 2 2

Building ordinances 2 2 2 25.8

Plot division 4 1 1 3 4

Streets and other public areas 3 11 7 6 1 7 3.9

Reminders to build 1 1

Expropriation of land 1 1 1 1 1 9.4

Deviation from regulations (land use and building) 57 107 99 84 8 1 3 3 2 62 7

Decisions relating to areas requiring planning 24 35 28 23 3 2 31 8.4

Building permits 44 88 61 49 6 4 2 1 70 8.4

Action permits 19 25 28 22 5 1 16 9.4

Maintenance of the environment, maintenance of buildings 1 1 1 4.8

Demolition permits 2 7 2 2 7 7.1

Permits for landscape work 1 4 1 1 4 10.6

Location of community infrastructure equipment 7 2 2 5 3.1

Temporary buildings 3 1 1 2 2.1

Building inspections 14 20 20 19 1 2 12 8.6

Other land use and building cases 6 8 8 4 2 2 6 17

Roads 6 16 18 14 1 3 4 6.5

Public roads 5 9 13 11 1 1 1 6.6

Private roads 1 3 2 2 2 4.5

Other roads cases 4 3 1 2 1 7.7

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 34 |

Real property 11 22 10 7 3 2 21 14Expropriation/redemption 6 12 5 3 2 1 12 14.3

Rights of pre-emptive purchase 3 7 3 2 1 1 6 12.9

Other real property cases 2 3 2 2 3 14.8

Environment 397 305 434 326 62 18 26 2 7 261 15

Environmental protection 166 146 188 133 36 8 10 1 3 121 15.1

Environmental permits (forestry) 3 3 3 3 3 14.6

Environmental permits (metal industry) 3 3 2 1 23.8

Environmental permits (production of energy) 12 2 12 9 3 1 1 19.3

Environmental permits (mining) 5 1 5 4 1 1 23.2

Environmental permits (production of food and fodder) 2 1 2 2 1 11.2

Environmental permits (waste management) 18 13 17 13 3 1 14 19.5

Environmental permits (fuel stations and storing) 12 9 15 8 4 2 1 1 5 12.1

Environmental permits (quarrying and crushing of stone) 17 22 19 15 1 1 2 1 19 14.3

Environmental permits (sewage) 7 1 7 7 1 23.3

Environmental permits (cowsheds) 19 11 20 7 10 3 10 15.2

Environmental permits (fur farming) 2 2 3 3 1 11.3

Environmental permits (motor tracks, vessel traffi c) 6 3 4 4 5 12.5

Environmental permits (treatment of polluted soil and groundwater) 2 2 2 1 1 2 15.8

Environmental permits (peat production) 6 1 1 5 5.3

Other environmental permits 16 15 15 10 4 1 16 16.3

Notifi cation of events causing noise 4 1 4 4 1 17.8

Supervision and administrative enforcement under the Environmental Protection Act 11 10 12 8 4 9 18.7

Charges and compensations under the Environmental Protection Act 1 1 1 21.8

Other cases under the Environmental Protection Act 1 1

Waste charges 1 2 2 1 1 1 7.1

Organised waste disposal services 3 1 4 3 1 11.3

Other cases under the Waste Management Act 3 5 4 4 4 7.6

Health inspections 10 6 10 8 1 1 6 13.4

Prevention of oil pollution 1 1

Cases under the Emissions Trading Act 12 12 9 2 1 5.6

Off -road traffi c and motorboat traffi c 7 5 9 7 1 1 3 14.3

Other environmental protection cases 1 12 2 2 11 1.7

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 35 |

Water rights 127 59 127 93 20 5 8 1 2 56 15.5

Hydraulic engineering 46 26 49 38 6 2 3 1 22 14.6

Use of hydroelectric power 2 2 1 1 12.6

Ship routes and other vessel traffi c areas 7 7 8 8 6 18.2

Ditching 7 4 9 9 2 14.7

Organisation of watercourses 3 3 3 16.1

Regulation of watercourses 15 5 1 4 10 23.4

Groundwater and water treatment systems 13 4 14 7 7 3 16.1

Sewage systems 5 4 7 4 1 1 1 2 14.1

Charges and compensations under the Water Act 2 2 2 1 1 2 23.6

Supervision and administrative enforcement under the Water Act 17 10 17 14 2 1 1 9 12.9

Other cases under the Water Act 10 2 11 7 4 1 17.5

Joint processing of permits under the Environmental Protection Act and the Water Act 4 8 6 5 1 6 11.1Administrative enforcement in the joint processing of permits 1 1

Joint processing of permits (fi sh farming) 1 2 2 1 1 1 8.1

Joint processing of permits (peat production) 1 5 3 3 3 11.8

Joint processing of other permits 2 1 1 1 14.7

Nature conservation 95 89 109 90 7 5 7 2 73 14.2

Natura 30 28 27 23 4 31 17.5

Cases under the Nature Conservation Act (excluding Natura) 15 22 28 22 4 2 1 8 9.3

Conservation of fauna 2 7 6 6 1 2 4.8

Extraction of land resources 44 26 40 31 7 1 1 30 17.7

Conservation of buildings 2 3 3 3 2 7.7

Other conservation cases 2 3 5 5 12.5

Outdoor recreation and camping 1 3 2 2 2 5.8

Outdoor recreation 1 3 2 2 2 5.8

Housing production and other housing cases 4 2 2 2 27.1

State-subsidised housing 2 2

Other housing cases 2 2 2 27.1

Social welfare and health care 610 787 927 799 18 51 40 19 7 463 9.6

Social welfare 445 576 660 564 13 39 29 15 5 356 10

Granting of subsistence allowance 104 212 236 220 1 2 11 2 1 79 6.9

Recovery of subsistence allowance 17 10 18 15 3 9 17.2

Public care of children 126 174 214 178 2 19 5 10 86 9.3

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 36 |

Restrictions on the right of access in child welfare cases 1 6 5 2 3 1 1 5.7

Other child welfare cases 4 7 4 4 1 6 12.6

Guarantees of child maintenance 5 4 2 2 1 15.9

Services for persons with disabilities 3 4 2 2 5 17.5

Handicap services 104 114 106 79 3 16 6 2 1 111 13.5

Care of intoxicant abusers 3 3 3 13.9

Support for the home care of persons with disabilities 6 4 4 4 6 18.2

Children’s daycare 1 1 1 13.6

Compensation for the costs of child welfare 25 15 27 26 1 1 12 16.9

Compensation for the costs of other social welfare 4 7 4 3 1 7 13.9

Social welfare service fees 4 6 5 4 1 5 11.9

Other social welfare cases 38 17 27 21 1 1 4 28 14.4

Health care and medical care 147 191 246 221 3 7 11 4 2 90 8.2Public health 1 1 1 29.7

Psychiatric treatment orders 97 159 199 185 3 8 3 2 55 6.8

Restriction of the right of self-determination in mental health cases 1 1 1 8.9

Other mental health cases 2 2 2 5.9

Health care professionals 8 9 5 4 1 12 16.6

Food safety 4 2 5 2 2 1 1 10.1

Compensation for the costs of health care 20 14 18 15 2 1 16 14.4

Health care service fees 2 2 2 12.6

Other health care and medical care cases 14 5 13 9 1 2 1 6 15.5

Medicines and pharmacies 18 20 21 14 2 5 17 10.5

Medicine licences and price control 5 5 4 2 2 6 14.8

Other cases concerning medicines 3 6 4 1 3 5 19

Pharmacies 10 9 13 11 2 6 6.5

Economic activities, transport and communications 407 331 371 253 27 51 24 16 1 366 13.4

Private legal persons and industrial rights 77 54 68 49 1 12 1 5 1 62 15.3

Management of companies 19 11 11 10 1 1 18 13.3

Private legal persons 5 1 3 2 1 3 13.8

Trade register 3 3 1 1 1 9.2

Patents, utility models, integrated circuits 30 23 27 19 6 2 26 18.5

Industrial designs and trademarks 17 18 21 15 4 2 14 13.8

Other cases concerning legal persons and industrial rights 3 1 3 2 1 1 11.2

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 37 |

Trades 127 92 109 66 14 18 7 4 110 14.6

Insurance 3 2 1 1 4 33.8

Mining 7 3 9 4 2 2 1 1 11.7

Electricity 1 1

Explosives and infl ammable liquids 1 1 1 3.7

Real estate agencies 6 2 2 4 26.3

Hotel and catering industry, liquor licences and alcohol retailing 9 31 13 9 1 2 1 27 6.8

Competition law 9 5 8 6 2 6 24.1

Public procurement 79 49 66 42 9 10 3 2 62 14.1

Other trades cases 14 9 2 2 4 1 5 20

Agriculture and forestry 59 54 73 54 6 7 6 40 11.2

Agricultural production control (including national subsidies) 14 26 28 23 1 1 3 12 7.2

Forestry 3 4 5 4 1 2 14.7

Conservation of fl ora 1 1 2

Reindeer herding 1 4 2 2 3 9.1

Hunting and fi shing 25 11 28 17 4 4 3 8 12.1

Other agricultural and forestry cases 15 8 10 8 2 13 18.9

Structural funds of the EU 14 20 9 7 1 1 25 10.4

European Social Fund (ESF) 2 3 1 1 4 2.8

European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) 2 3 1 1 4 22.9

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF-Guidance Section) 8 6 1 1 13 10.9

Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) 2 2 2 18.3

Other structural funds 8 4 4 4 5.2

Transport and communications 130 111 112 77 6 13 10 6 129 12.7

Driver’s licences and permits for professional transport 18 40 26 19 3 4 32 8.8

Driving schools 1 1 1 16.5

Professional motor traffi c 36 14 18 15 1 2 32 17

Railway traffi c, shipping, aviation 5 2 2 1 1 5 25.6

TV licences 26 20 29 25 1 3 17 11.6

Data communications 27 22 20 4 1 11 3 1 29 13.5

Communications market inspection fees 1 1 1 11.8

Seafarers, pilots, etc 3 1 3 2 1 1 8.9

Inspection and registration of vehicles 2 3 2 1 1 3 16.7

Orders to compensate for unpaid traffi c insurance fees 4 4 3 2 1 5 8.8

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 38 |

Parking tickets 2 2 2 2 2 13.6

Excess freight charges 1 1 1 18

Other traffi c cases 4 3 4 3 1 3 17.6

Taxation 639 670 706 578 92 12 17 7 1 602 10.6

Taxes on income and capital 489 463 524 443 54 9 14 3 1 427 10.3

Taxes on earned income 283 255 301 267 18 5 9 2 237 10

Taxes on capital 4 7 4 3 1 7 8.1

Taxes on corporate income 117 102 111 88 19 2 2 108 11.7

Taxation of agriculture and forestry 3 4 5 3 2 2 9.2

Taxes withheld at source 5 1 2 1 1 4 18.9

International taxation 11 3 3 8 4.9

Advance rulings of the Central Tax Board 14 22 26 21 4 1 10 6.9

Advance rulings of the Tax Offi ce 11 2 9 4 5 4 11.3

Adjustment of tax withholding and preassessment 1 7 2 2 6 6.9

Prepayment of taxes and social security contributions 15 32 19 19 28 13.6

Prepayment of taxes and the employer’s social security contributions 16 15 12 3 1 13.7

Real estate tax 18 15 24 21 1 1 1 9 7.6

Other taxes on income and capital 2 5 3 2 1 4 13.1

Value added tax 73 60 81 59 15 2 3 2 52 11.6

Appeals concerning value added tax 60 46 65 50 11 2 2 41 12

Advance rulings of the Central Tax Board (VAT) 6 4 6 1 3 2 4 12.3

Advance rulings of the Tax Offi ce (VAT) 4 8 6 5 1 6 8.1

Registration of liability to pay value added tax 3 2 4 3 1 1 9.3

Taxes and duties relating to vehicles 23 36 31 18 13 28 16.7

Appeals concerning car tax 20 23 21 8 13 22 22.2

Preliminary rulings concerning car tax 2 1 1 1 1.5

Car tax refund 3 6 7 7 2 5.2

Vehicle tax 2 2

Fuel tax 3 2 2 1 5.9

Excise duties and customs 17 37 17 14 3 37 10.3

Customs items 3 1 1 2 4.5

Appeals concerning customs procedure 3 14 4 3 1 13 7.5

Control carried out by the Customs (including EU subsidies) 1 1

Excise duties 14 19 12 10 2 21 11.7

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 39 |

By category of appeal

Other taxes and tax assessment procedure 37 74 53 44 7 1 1 58 7.9

Inheritance and gift taxes 10 28 21 15 5 1 17 6.9

Lottery tax 1 1

Stamp duties 1 3 2 2 2 5.8

Asset transfer tax 10 14 15 13 2 9 7.8

Waste tax 1 1

Insurance contributions and forestry levy 1 3 1 1 3 12.7

Other state charges (including those under the Act on the Charge Criteria of the State) 1 3 1 1 3 12.5

Preliminary rulings in other taxation cases 4 15 5 5 14 6.9

Tax assessment procedure 3 3 3 13.8

Other cases under tax legislation 6 7 5 4 1 8 9.1

Other cases 18 22 21 16 1 1 2 1 1 18 15.1Pensions 5 11 8 8 8 15.2

Others 13 11 13 8 1 1 2 1 1 10 15

Appeals 2033 2186 2338 1833 197 145 103 60 18 1861 11.9

Requests for leave to appeal 935 1484 1425 1233 96 45 35 17 6 988 8.7

Annulment of judgments 196 194 195 159 14 1 18 3 7 188 10.6

Restoration of lapsed time 14 23 29 21 5 1 1 1 1 8 8.1

Procedural complaints 27 32 15 14 1 1 43 10.3

Other petitions 3 12 7 3 3 1 1 7 5.4

Total 3208 3931 4009 3263 312 192 161 82 34 3095 10.6

Pen

din

g ca

ses

New

cas

es

Dec

ided

cas

es

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n u

ph

eld

Ch

alle

nge

d

dec

isio

n a

men

ded

Dec

isio

n r

efer

red

b

ack

to

low

er a

uth

ori

ty

Cas

e d

ecla

red

in

adm

issi

ble

Cas

e la

pse

s

Pen

din

g at

th

e en

d o

f th

e ye

ar

Rem

ove

d f

rom

th

e d

ock

et

Ave

rage

len

gth

o

f p

roce

edin

gs

| 40 |

Helsinki 6365 10677 9481 47 7514 1149

Hämeenlinna 1939 2814 2830 8 1915 -24

Kouvola 1263 1411 1522 7 1145 -118

Kuopio 1830 2474 2475 7 1822 -8

Oulu 830 1447 1333 2 942 112

Rovaniemi 375 833 651 1 556 181

Turku 1156 2247 2358 10 1035 -121

Vaasa 1070 2148 1833 28 1357 287

Åland Islands 38 109 110 37 -1

Total 14866 24160 22593 110 16323 1456

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Helsinki 1014 1233 1166 1200 1432

Turku 452 443 431 415 375

Hämeenlinna 343 348 342 362 382

Vaasa 298 362 367 357 345

Kouvola 127 169 197 186 180

Kuopio 245 243 246 298 305

Oulu 173 206 168 181 178

Rovaniemi 120 87 124 113 96

Åland Islands 18 23 47 23 34

Total 2790 3114 3088 3135 3327

Pending at the end of the year

Change +/-

Removed from the docket

Decided cases

New cases

Pending at the beginning

of the year

CASES REFERRED BY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE

COURTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF

THE ÅLAND ISLANDS IN 2001–2005

CASES BEFORE THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE

COURTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF

THE ÅLAND ISLANDS IN 2005

| 41 |

New cases Decided cases Pending cases

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Helsinki

Hämeenlinna

KouvolaKuopio

Oulu

RovaniemiTurku

Vaasa

Åland Islands

NEW CASES, DECIDED CASES AND PENDING CASES BEFORE

THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND THE

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF THE ÅLAND ISLANDS IN 2005

| 42 |

New cases Decided cases Pending cases

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASE LOAD OF THE REGIONAL

ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

OF THE ÅLAND ISLANDS IN 1996–2005

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

New cases 19423 20021 19122 19550 20315 20488 21801 20929 21157 24160

Decided cases 21766 20388 19476 18654 18282 18552 19954 21370 21214 22593

Pending cases 9730 9305 9014 9794 11555 13429 15292 14825 14764 16323

■

■

■

■

■

■

Th e Annual Report 2005 of the Supreme Administrative Court is available in

Finnish, Swedish, English and French.

Layout and cover: Adplus Oy

Photos: Risto Laine and Ritva Vähämaa

Editor: Tommi Haaja

Translation: Virpi Koivu

Printed by: F. G. Lönnberg

SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Mail address

P.O. Box 180, 00131 Helsinki

Visiting address

Unioninkatu 16, Helsinki

Telefax

010 36 40382

E-mail

korkein.hallinto-oikeus@om.fi

Telephone

010 36 40200

Customer service

010 36 40233