Talk:Constitution of Finland

Finland High‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Criticism"[edit]

Under 'Criticism' the article currently reads:

Laws cannot be ruled unconstitutional in the supreme courts of the judicial branch, but are previewed by the legislative branch and voted on irrespective of their constitutionality. This structure is unusual among democratic nations.

Is this true? Section 106 of the constitution reads:

Section 106 - Primacy of the Constitution

If, in a matter being tried by a court of law, the application of an Act would be in evident conflict with the Constitution, the court of law shall give primacy to the provision in the Constitution.

Iota 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no constitutional court in Finland, and the courts generally give great deference to the judgement of the legislature. This provision in the Constitution is limited to deciding particular cases: a court must give precedence to the Constitution, but no court can strike down an act or pronounce on its constitutionality. Also, it would be highly unusual (impossible?) for a court in Finland to apply this principle to an Act that the Constitutional committee of the Parliament had considered and deemed to be constitutional. So it's true that there is no judicial review in Finland, only legislative preview. As it is, however, the passage you quote from the article begs the question of the definition of constitutionality, so I'll change it a bit.--Rallette 10:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, there is a listing of states with no constitutional courts. I believe that Switzerland should be among them, the highest court (Swiss Federal Supreme Court) has jurisdiction over various constitutional issues but no authority to strike down federal laws. RKloti 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Exceptive" laws seems very unwieldy. Surely 'exceptional' is the English rendering or is this not a translation of 'poikkeuksellinen'? Jatrius 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Exceptive" is, as far as I can tell, the canonical translation, used by the Finnish government in English-language documents.--Rallette 07:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]