Circular Reasoning (EN)

The primary claim in the application was the voidness of the final inspection (not appeal). The Supreme Administrative Court resolved the case based on appealability and revocability without taking a position on whether the act was legally valid at all.

A claim of voidness differs legally from ordinary appeal: if an authority acts without competence, the question is not about a defective decision but about a potentially void act.

In 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court held that when an official approved a building for use in violation of a permit condition, the inspection record contained an appealable decision.

The complainants’ situation was more severe (permit expired 9 years earlier, parts of the building had never been permitted), yet the Supreme Administrative Court held in 2024 that the final inspection was not appealable. The Supreme Administrative Court did not explain why the decision departed from the earlier one.

When both the administrative court and the civil court refuse to assess the legality of an act, a situation arises where:

• A public authority’s legally operative act remains without judicial review
• The legality question circulates through the system without receiving an answer
• Constitution § 21 and international obligations are not fulfilled

LähiTapiola (January 2026) held that the matter belongs to the District Court — directly contrary to the District Court’s own assessment. When a professional actor whose financial risk depends on correct jurisdictional assessment reaches a different conclusion than the court, the jurisdictional uncertainty is real.

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6

Guarantees the right to a fair trial. The European Court of Human Rights has held that also in administrative matters, effective access to court must be secured when a person’s rights are affected.

In the complainants’ case, the final inspection had a decisive impact on a €445,000 property transaction.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 47

Guarantees the right to an effective remedy. Everyone whose rights guaranteed by Union law have been violated must have access to an effective remedy before a court.

Finland as an EU Member State is obliged to maintain a system that guarantees effective judicial protection.

In the complainants’ case:

• Practically no remedy whatsoever to examine the legality of the final inspection
• The administrative court did not take a position on the primary claim
• The civil court refused to assess the legality of the administrative act
• A public authority’s legally operative act remained entirely without judicial review

The Turku Court of Appeal denied leave for continued consideration in case S 18/2025/1533. The District Court’s ruling thus became final. The denial itself is not criticised — it is raised because, with it, the last ordinary opportunity to have the core question assessed on the merits was closed.

In every forum, the same primary claim has been presented: a final inspection conducted without competence is null and void and produces no legal effects. The claim has not been rejected on substantive grounds anywhere — each forum has answered an adjacent question instead:

• Supreme Administrative Court: not an appealable or annullable decision
• District Court: legality falls under administrative court jurisdiction
• Court of Appeal: no leave for continued consideration

The original complaint relied on KHO:2011:23 (appealability of an inspection record). The supplement raises a second precedent that goes directly to the core of the primary claim — the nullity of an administrative decision made without competence.

In the application submitted to the Supreme Administrative Court (pages 8–9 of the appeal), the Court’s own yearbook ruling KHO:2021:117 was expressly and centrally invoked:

“if the authority that issued the decision was not competent in the matter, the administrative decision made was in principle null and void and without legal effects”

The primary claim — the nullity of the final inspection approval — was built directly on this precedent. In the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision 968/2024, the precedent KHO:2021:117 is not mentioned once — not approvingly, not as distinguishable, not even in passing.

The Ombudsman is not asked to assess whether the Court applied its precedent correctly, but whether it is compatible with the right to a reasoned decision and proper handling under section 21 of the Constitution that a precedent of the deciding court itself, expressly and centrally invoked by the party, is left entirely without mention, even though the primary claim was built upon it.

The Supreme Administrative Court first found that the record is not an appealable decision because the inspection had been approved without remarks. It then concluded that, because the record is not appealable, it cannot be annullable either. The nullity question was thus excluded from administrative jurisdiction by procedural reasoning — without any substantive assessment of whether the act was legally valid in the first place.

Constitution s. 2(3)

Requires the exercise of public authority to be based on law. — Breached in building control.

Constitution s. 21

Guarantees the party the right to have an allegedly unlawful act of authority assessed on the merits by a court. — Breached in court proceedings.

Constitution s. 22

Imposes on public authority the duty to guarantee the realisation of fundamental and human rights. — Breached at the level of the system as a whole.