Perustuslain tulkinta Suomen ylimmissä tuomioistuimissa: empiirinen ja oikeusvertaileva tutkimus

Kirjoittajat

• Maija Dahlberg Itä-Suomen yliopisto

Avainsanat:

perustuslain tulkinta, ylimmät tuomioistuimet, empiirinen oikeustutkimus, oikeusvertailu, Pohjoismaat

Abstrakti

Constitutional interpretation in the Finnish Supreme Courts: empirical and comparative study

In this article, I analyse the constitutional interpretations in the leading constitutional cases before the Finnish Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus, KKO) and the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) (a total of 80 cases). The analysis is based on data in which we gathered information about the general features of the judgments, modes of argumentation (e.g. whether a literal/teleological interpretation/international legal sources/own precedents are used), and key constitutional concepts (e.g. whether reference is made to the rule of law or the principle of proportionality). The research questions in this article are: 1) What are the differences in the constitutional reasoning of the Finnish Supreme Courts compared to other Nordic countries, and what factors may explain any possible differences? and 2) How do the KKO and KHO differ in their constitutional reasoning, and what might explain these differences? The latter question is relevant to the discussion of whether the Finnish Supreme Courts should be merged, as any potentially fundamental differences in constitutional reasoning between the Supreme Courts may support the unification of these judicial bodies. Additionally, this research highlights why the constitutional interpretation practices of the Finnish Supreme Courts may diverge from one another. This is important to understand in order to avoid different constitutional interpretations between the KHO and KKO.