Heikki Vestman (NCP), the chairperson of the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee, was photographed arriving for a committee meeting in Helsinki on 5 July 2024. Vestman has voiced his frustration with recurrent claims that the committee has become politicised, arguing that such claims are one-sided and erroneous. (Emmi Korhonen – Lehtikuva)
- Next Article Counsel claims Eagle S crew have been treated inappropriately – police deny claim
HEIKKI VESTMAN (NCP), the chairperson of the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee, has voiced his displeasure with statements made by Juha Lavapuro, who begins his nine-year term as judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 1 January.
“I consider any kind of talk that challenges the ruling of a competent body on the prevalent legal situation and the obligation to comply with it harmful for the rule-of-law state – be it from a politician, judge, professor or an ordinary citizen,” Vestman wrote on X on Monday.
Lavapuro criticised the border security act – or pushback act, as it has been called by critics – in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat on Monday. The Constitutional Law Committee, he said, was wrong to conclude in its statement that the act could be enacted as a so-called limited derogation to the constitution.
He also pointed out that the constitution had the option not to pass the act if it thought that it is unconstitutional.
Vestman on Monday indicated that Lavapuro should not be making such comments given his then role as a justice on the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. “Does criticising the Parliament and its Constitutional Law Committee over a legislative project comply with the court’s statutory role when the criticism comes from a member of the court of highest instance and thereby a representative of the court institution?”
The border security act was drafted to combat instrumentalised migration at the border between Finland and Russia. It enables the government and president to temporarily suspend the receipt of asylum applications at border-crossing points and deny migrants turned back at the border the right to appeal against the denial of entry.
Lavapuro on Monday told Helsingin Sanomat that the Constitutional Law Committee has shown signs of politicisation, echoing the concerns of several other legal experts.
“If you hear independent experts and completely shrug off their judicial views by citing national security, you can justifiably say that the committee has stepped out of its constitutional law role into politicising,” he viewed.
Vestman claimed that the “politicisation mantra” repeats the “same, one-sided and erroneous claims” about the committee statement on the border security act. The act, he assured, was examined in a way that is fully compliant with the established practice.
“The Finnish constitution states unequivocally that the Constitutional Law Committee rules on the constitutionality of bills and on the legislative procedure that the bill can be enacted with,” he wrote.
Aleksi Teivainen – HT
- Next Article Counsel claims Eagle S crew have been treated inappropriately – police deny claim
Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi
