Merkittävän julkisen vallan käytön delegointikielto
Avainsanat:
perustuslaki, julkinen valta, delegointi, julkishallinto, oikeusvaltio, perusoikeudetAbstrakti
Prohibition on delegating the exercise of significant public power
This article examines Section 124 of the Finnish Constitution, which reserves the exercise of significant public power exclusively to public authorities. It explores how the content of this prohibition on delegation is reflected in the interpretative practice of the Constitutional Law Committee (CLC). The analytical framework applied is constitutional managerialism, according to which, particularly in difficult interpretive situations, constitutional interpretation becomes guided by managerialism, that is, the Constitution’s flexibility and subordination to the legislature’s objectives and interests.
The analysis of the CLC’s practice shows that the delegation prohibition has a well-established but narrow scope in cases where the exercise of power is unambiguously significant. In contrast, in complex cases where legislation proposes granting significant public powers to non-authorities, yet there are practical or policy reasons for organising the task outside the traditional civil service structure, the interpretation tends to emphasise expediency, practical considerations, and case-specific circumstances rather than the significance of power or the constitutional purpose of the rule.
The article concludes that even the absolute delegation prohibition is interpreted in a constitutionally managerialist manner and thus flexibly in practice. Secondly, the constitutional safeguards provided by the prohibition are not equally strong across all fundamental rights. Thirdly, because of the constitutional managerialist mode of interpretation, the content of the prohibition remains indeterminate: it renders the provision flexible but obscures a coherent understanding of its meaning. Due to the doctrinal vagueness and the lack of analytical tools, the boundaries of the state’s monopoly on legitimate power remain unclear, and the interpretation of the delegation prohibition partly unpredictable.
