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

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.