Finland has its own administrative judicial system. After the first decision by an administrative authority, the citizens can appeal to an administrative court system. It is composed of nine provincial administrative authorities, representing the first level of jurisdiction. Then, the top jurisdiction, before which the appeal is made, is the Supreme administrative authority. Besides that, some special administrative authorities exist, with special courts on precise issues (i.e. Insurance, Market). As seen in administrative judicial systems, the right to claim before the authority is granted to the citizens, depending on their relations with the administration of the country. As a consequence, the cases involve state administrations, agents or companies in their daily activities and decisions. Therefore, this is also a way to control the actions of the administration. However, logically the right to claim belongs to the citizens, as well as it belongs to any public authority in its links with another one.
[...] Before the Finnish administrative authorities, the burden of the proof always pertains to the applicant. He is obliged to provide the authority with evidences that could establish the situation or decision he is challenging, as well as their illegality. Thus, the private parties are often responsible for the burden of the proof, unless the applicant is the administration. On the contrary, the French administrative practice, through the jurisprudence of its supreme authority, has enabled the authority to reverse the burden of the proof on the addressee in some relevant and specific cases. [...]
[...] Concretely, when issuing the decision, the authority has to indicate to the parties the instructions, the appellate competent authority and the time limit for the appeal. Flowing from what is said above, one can notice that Finland has established strict formal requirements for the decisions of the administration; however some fields for derogations have been let opened. In France, the requirements are also strict concerning the administrative decisions. This results from a turmoil that occurred in the 70's in France. [...]
[...] That's why a rule has emerged that grants the right to stand in administrative procedure and act as parties, only to those whose own interest is at case in the actual case. As a consequence, a case brought by anyone else with a lighter interest in the actual case can be dismissed by the authority which has a discretional power in such a case, without any possibility of appeal for the applicant. However, the requirements tend to be the same in both countries; several differences can be found and explained further. [...]
[...] Finnish administrative law: the administrative procedure in Finland from a French perspective Finland has its own administrative judicial system. After the first decision by an administrative authority, the citizens can appeal to an administrative court system. It is composed of nine provincial administrative authorities, representing the first level of jurisdiction. Then, the top jurisdiction, before which the appeal is possible, is the Supreme administrative authority. Beside that, some special administrative authorities exist, with special courts on precise matters (i.e. Insurance, Market). [...]
[...] It is a practice recognized by the courts, especially the supreme administrative court. Concretely, the parties can challenge an administrative decision by directly asking the author of the decision to reconsider it. This has to be done by writing, and enables the applicant to postpone the time limit of the appeal. Furthermore, the decision of the authority to dismiss this reconsideration procedure can be attacked before the administrative courts. In the real practice of the administration, there is also the hierarchical reconsideration procedure, which can be more effective and powerful, because of the understandable reluctance from the official to admit his mistake. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture