1.  Finland is a democratic republic where legislative powers are exercised by a unicameral Parliament (Eduskunta). The new Constitution of Finland (731/1999) entered into force in 2000.¹ Chapter 2 of the Constitution consists of a comprehensive list of basic rights, which include also economic, social, and cultural rights as well as the more traditional civil and political ones. The constitutional review of law is performed ex ante by the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament (perustuslakivaliokunta), whose task is to review Government bills.

2.  Executive powers are divided between the Government (hallitus) and the President. The Government must enjoy the confidence of the Parliament, which is elected every four years. The Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament and thereafter formally appointed to office by the President. Other ministers are also formally appointed by the President in accordance with the Prime Minister’s proposal. The Prime Minister acts as the Head of the Government. Proposals for the enactment of acts (bills) in Parliament are initiated by the Government. The President is popularly elected every six years. The President formally confirms acts enacted by the Parliament. Upon the request of the Prime Minister, the President shall grant the resignation of the Government. The President can also do this without a request if the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament. The President’s actual powers mostly concern foreign policy, which the President leads in co-operation with the Government. Since the new Constitution entered into force in 2000, Finland has been a parliamentary system where the President’s role is mainly ceremonial. The judicial powers are exercised by independent courts. Administration of justice is divided between general courts and administrative courts and there are two supreme courts—one for each judicial branch.

3.  Finland is a unitary republic. However, the status of the Åland Islands as an autonomous province is confirmed in Section 120 of the Constitution. This means that the Legislative Assembly of the Åland Islands (Ålands lagting) holds legislative powers in many sectors such as social welfare and health care, with some exceptions such as the regulation of communicable diseases. Furthermore, Section 121 of the Constitution also vests a great deal of autonomy to municipalities—currently 309 of them. Municipal councils (kunnanvaltuusto) hold the highest decision-making powers in municipalities, and they are elected every four years. The Local Government Act includes provisions on the general principles governing municipal administration and the duties of the municipalities.² The municipalities have the right to levy municipal taxes and have powers—within the limits of national legislation—over several policies such as early childhood education, schooling, cultural services, social welfare and health care services, environmental services, land use and urban planning, water supply and sewerage, etc.

4.  According to Section 19(3) of the Constitution of Finland, ‘[t]he public authorities shall guarantee for everyone, as provided in more detail by an Act, adequate social, health and medical services and promote the health of the population.’ Consequently, the responsibility to organize adequate health and medical services, which are prescribed in legislation, is vested in the municipalities. From 2023, a new administrative model of social welfare and health services will be in place.³ With regard to primary health care, municipalities may organize services by themselves, but when it comes to specialized medical treatment in hospitals, each municipality must belong to a federation of municipalities based on hospital districts. Currently, there are 21 hospital districts in Finland. The municipalities and federations of municipalities can provide health services by themselves, together with other municipalities, by outsourcing them to private service providers, or by issuing service vouchers to patients. Municipal health care services are financed through State subsidies, municipal tax revenues, and patient charges. As a rule, the municipalities and federations of municipalities can allocate resources independently from the central Government. According to the Emergency Powers Act, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health as well as the regional State administrative agencies may only give orders to individual health care units in a state of emergency to change, expand, relocate, or hand over their activities.⁴

5.  There are two separate procedures for declaring a state of emergency. First, it is prescribed in Section 23 of the Constitution that in a state of emergency the Parliament can enact provisional exceptions to the constitutional basic rights. Second, according to the Emergency Powers Act, the Government, together with the President, can declare a state of emergency in order to put into operation the provisions of the Act. In both cases, the Parliament has the final authority to decide on the actual legislative measures (see Part II.A below).

6.  The response to the pandemic has not changed the basic constitutional structure of the State. However, due to the fact that both Section 23 of the Constitution as well as the Emergency Powers Act were put into operation for the first time because of the pandemic, some unclarity arose concerning the relationship between the two procedures for declaring a state of emergency. It was not clear whether enacting provisional exceptions to the basic rights by virtue of Section 23 of the Constitution required that the Government and the President had first declared a state of emergency. The Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament stated that this was not necessary. The Parliament can independently enact provisional exceptions to the basic rights by virtue of Section 23 of the Constitution.⁵

7.  According to Section 23 of the Constitution, in a state of emergency, provisional exceptions to basic rights can be made, either through Acts of Parliament or Government decrees (valtioneuvoston asetus). However, the Government’s authority to give decrees must be based on legislation, and the scope of application of the decrees must be restricted. Furthermore, the decrees must be submitted to the Parliament, which ultimately decides on their validity.

8.  In a state of emergency, exceptions to the basic rights provisions—as well as other provisions of the Constitution—can also be made under the Emergency Powers Act. The Emergency Powers Act has been enacted according to the procedure for constitutional enactment because it enables exceptions to the Constitution. Section 73 of the Constitution prescribes that any legislative proposal which entails a limited derogation of the Constitution must be enacted following the procedure of constitutional enactment, ie, hold the proposal in abeyance or declare it urgent by a majority of at least five-sixths. Acts that have been enacted according to the procedure of constitutional enactment—like the Emergency Powers Act—have no constitutional status, however. The Emergency Powers Act includes several provisions on various exceptional powers and measures that can be put into operation during a state of emergency. In order to put into operation the provisions of the Act, the Government, together with the President, must first declare a state of emergency, after which the Government must further issue a separate Decree on the Putting into Operation of the Emergency Powers Act (käyttöönottoasetus). This decree can be valid for a maximum of six months at a time, and it must also specify which provisions of the act will be put into operation and in which regions of the country. Finally, the decree must be submitted to the Parliament which can then decide whether it can stay in force as such or be wholly or partly repealed.

9.  According to both Section 23 of the Constitution and the Emergency Powers Act, a pandemic is legitimate grounds for declaring a state of emergency.

10.  So far, a state of emergency has been declared in Finland twice during the Covid-19 pandemic. The first declaration was issued by the President and the Government on 16 March 2020 pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act.⁶ Three months later, on 15 June 2020, the Government made the decision to end the first state of emergency.⁷ The second state of emergency was declared on 1 March 2021, again pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act.⁸ This time, the state of emergency lasted only about two months since the Government ended it on 27 April 2021.⁹

11.  During the two states of emergency, the Government issued several decrees by virtue of the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act (Sections 88, 93–94, 109, and 118). These decrees entailed some restrictions on the right to education, the right to adequate health services, the right to occupational safety, and freedom of movement, all of which are enshrined in the Constitution (see Part IV below). Furthermore, by way of Section 23 of the Constitution, the Parliament temporarily amended the Act on Accommodation and Food Service Activities,¹⁰ closing down restaurants and pubs and thus curtailing the right to work and freedom of occupation which are also enshrined in the Constitution (see Part IV.A below). Basic rights have also been temporarily restricted by ordinary legislation.

12.  According to Section 23 of the Constitution, the provisional exceptions made to basic rights during a state of emergency must be in accordance with Finland's international human rights obligations. Consequently, no derogation from the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery and forced labour, and the principle of no punishment without law are allowed as stipulated in Article 15(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Moreover, as stated in the United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment No 29, ‘States parties may in no circumstances invoke Article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by taking hostages, by imposing collective punishments, through arbitrary deprivations of liberty or by deviating from fundamental principles of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence.’¹¹

13.  None of the international conventions to which Finland is a party, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and ECHR, have been regarded as setting restrictions to the State’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and no legal derogations from these conventions have been made.

14.  The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos) (THL or ‘Institute’), an independent expert agency working under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, has referred to the World Health Organization’s recommendations, for instance, when updating its own recommendations on the use of face masks.¹²

15.  Finnish legislation does not recognize a separate public health emergency; only a constitutional state of emergency can be declared, as explained in Part II.A above. The main law aimed at tackling contagious diseases without the need to declare a state of emergency is the Communicable Diseases Act.¹³ Section 4 of the Act classifies communicable diseases into three categories: generally hazardous, monitored, and other communicable diseases. These are all further specified in the Government Decree on Communicable Diseases.¹⁴ On 13 February 2020, Section 1 of the Decree was amended to add Covid-19 to the list of generally hazardous communicable diseases.¹⁵

16.  Although many interventions and restrictions could be made on the grounds of the Communicable Diseases Act, it became clear from the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic that the act had serious gaps in it, which is why emergency powers legislation had to be resorted to. However, it became equally clear that the Emergency Powers Act did not provide adequate powers either for the Government and other authorities to respond to the pandemic. Therefore, the Communicable Diseases Act has been temporarily amended several times during the pandemic so that there would not be a need to declare new states of emergency. The Act mandates, for instance, regional State administrative agencies (aluehallintovirasto) (AVI) and municipal authorities to close schools as well as social care and healthcare units and to ban public events (Section 58). Temporary amendments mandate the Government, for instance, to restrict the opening hours of restaurants and pubs (Section 58(a)).

17.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, no new general law providing for emergency powers to respond to the pandemic has been introduced. Only amendments to the already existing legislation have been made and targeted new legislation—for instance on re-employment subsidies and compensation for losses of restaurants (see Part IV.A.4 below)—has been passed. There has not been any major political controversy regarding the introduction of new Covid-19-related legislation at the time of the enactment. However, the necessity and the length of public health measures—enabled by the legislation—have been questioned as the pandemic has dragged on. For instance, in August 2021, the Finnish Hospitality Association (MaRa) that represents hotels, restaurants, tourism, etc, lodged several appeals in administrative courts against the regional State administrative agencies’ decisions on new limitations on public gatherings and social distancing. The Association argued that the limitations were no longer necessary because vaccination of the population was making rapid progress and the need for hospital care had stayed moderate.¹⁶

18.  Executive rule-making powers have played an important role in establishing the rules for dealing with the pandemic. Executive rule-making powers are divided into three levels: the national (mainly the Government), the regional (mainly regional State administrative agencies), and the municipal (municipal boards and municipal physicians responsible for communicable diseases). In case of a widespread communicable disease such as Covid-19, higher executive authorities can give guidelines to lower authorities. They also have the powers to make decisions that supersede the decisions of lower authorities (see eg Part I above and Part IV.A below).

19.  With regards to the national level, the Emergency Powers Act gives the Government powers to issue decrees through which restrictions can be imposed on people and on the society at large in a state of emergency, as explained in Part II.A above. The maximum period of validity of these decrees is dependent on the period of validity of the Decree on the Putting into Operation of the Emergency Powers Act, which is a maximum of six months at a time (see Part II.A above). The Government has issued such decrees, for instance, on temporary restrictions on freedom of movement.¹⁷ The Government has also issued decrees based on ‘normal’ legislation such as the Communicable Diseases Act. For instance, the Government Decree on Voluntary Covid-19 Vaccinations is based on Section 54 of the Communicable Diseases Act.¹⁸ The legislation does not set a maximum duration for regular decrees.

20.  Additionally, the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Liikenne- ja viestintävirasto) (TRAFICOM) may decide on nationwide restrictions on the number of passengers in public transport by virtue of Section 58(f) of the Communicable Diseases Act. This particular section of the Act was a temporary amendment with a duration of a little over four months.

21.  At the regional level, the six regional State administrative agencies are in charge of coordinating and monitoring the control of communicable diseases in their respective areas by virtue of the Communicable Diseases Act (Section 8). For instance, according to Section 16 of the Act, the agencies can issue orders on mandatory health examinations to prevent the spread of hazardous communicable diseases. The agencies have issued such orders to impose mandatory health examinations in land border checkpoints, harbours, and airports.¹⁹ In the Åland Islands, the regional executive rule-making powers with regards to communicable diseases lie with the Regional Government of Åland (Ålands landskapsregering).

22.  Finally, at the municipal level, a municipal organ responsible for the prevention of communicable diseases—normally a municipal health board—may also decide, for instance, on the closing of social welfare and healthcare units, schools and nurseries, shopping centres, sports venues, etc (Sections 58 and 58(g) of the Communicable Diseases Act). The regional State administrative agencies can also decide on similar restrictions on their respective territories, which would then override the municipal decisions.

23.  Regarding the municipal level, municipal physicians responsible for communicable diseases also have the authority to decide on certain measures. These physicians may order a person into quarantine for a maximum of one month at a time (Sections 60 and 62 of the Communicable Diseases Act).

24.  All administrative decisions and orders made by virtue of the Communicable Diseases Act are appealable, and appeals may be lodged in an administrative court (Section 90 of the Communicable Diseases Act). Some decisions made by virtue of the Act have, indeed, been appealed against (see eg Part IV.A below).

25.  Although the regional State administrative agencies as well as municipalities have the authority to decide on many restrictions in their respective jurisdictions, in practice their decisions have been considerably influenced by the guidelines given by the Government and/or the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. For instance, the Government has given recommendations concerning the maximum number of people in public assemblies. The strictness of the recommendations is based on the state of the pandemic in a particular region, ie, whether the pandemic is, at a basic level, accelerating or spreading.²⁰

26.  As mentioned in Part II.A above, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), an independent expert agency working under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, has also published recommendations, among others, on the use of face masks.²¹

27.  In general, the regional State administrative agencies and municipalities have followed these recommendations rather dutifully. There have only been a few occasions on which municipalities have acted against the Government’s recommendations. For instance, on 27 January 2021, the Metropolitan Area Covid-19 Coordination Group decided that leisure activities and youth services for minors were to resume on a limited basis, although this was not in line with the Government’s recommendation.²²

28.  There have been no divergences between official recommendations and the law.

29.  With regards to the Parliament’s oversight of the decree-making powers of the Government, there are two situations that must be discerned, especially in the context of the pandemic. First, as explained in Part II.A above, the putting into operation of any of the exceptional powers of the Emergency Powers Act requires that the Government issue a separate Decree on the Putting into Operation of the Act after the Government and the President have first declared a state of emergency. This decree must be submitted to the Parliament, which then may decide whether it can stay in force as such or be wholly or partly repealed. If the Decree is not submitted to the Parliament within one week of its issuing, it expires. Similarly, provisional exceptions to the basic rights that are made through Government decrees by virtue of Section 23 of the Constitution during a state of emergency (see Part II.A above) must be submitted to the Parliament, which ultimately decides on their validity. In both situations, the Parliament discusses the decree in a single reading—instead of the normal two—in a plenary session and a simple majority vote is sufficient for the passing of the decree.

30.  Second, in ‘normal times’, it is prescribed in the Constitution (Section 80) that the Government, the President, and individual ministries may issue decrees if so mandated in the Constitution or in Acts of Parliament. Decrees may not be issued on the principles concerning the rights and obligations of private individuals. Because the power to issue decrees is based on the provisions of the Constitution or Acts of Parliament, the executive cannot extend its own powers without further action on the part of the legislature. The legislature may, thus, also abolish or restrict the ordinary decree-issuing powers of the Government by legislative amendments.

31.  There is no submission procedure concerning ‘normal’ decrees, but the Government is politically accountable to the Parliament. According to Section 43 of the Constitution, a minimum of 20 members of the Parliament may address an interpellation to the Government or to an individual minister. The interpellation must be replied to within 15 days in a plenary session of the Parliament. Finally, a vote of confidence shall be taken by the Parliament if a motion calling for a vote of no confidence is put forward during the debate. The vote of confidence is settled by a simple majority of votes in the Parliament.

32.  Furthermore, the Chancellor of Justice—as one of the two supreme oversight authorities in Finland (see Part III.G below)—supervises the lawfulness of the decisions and actions of the Government and the President on a general level (Section 112 of the Constitution). An individual Minister may be held accountable for unlawful conduct in office (Section 114 of the Constitution). The Chancellor of Justice is formally appointed by the President at the proposal of the Ministry of Justice.

33.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, four interpellations have so far been addressed to the Parliament.²³ None of them has concerned the Covid-19 measures taken by the Government. On 24 March 2020, the Finns Party (in opposition) decided to withdraw its interpellation on the migration policy of the Government because of the Covid-19 situation.²⁴

34.  The Parliament has been able to convene during the Covid-19 pandemic, and no additional recesses or prorogations have taken place. However, the Speaker’s Council of the Parliament outlined on 24 March 2020 that only necessary and urgent matters are to be discussed in Parliament.²⁵ The secretaries of different committees of the Parliament, together with relevant ministries, were to settle which matters were to be considered necessary and urgent. For instance, parliamentary proceedings concerning non-urgent Government bills, reports, private bills, and popular initiatives were postponed. This practice was renounced on 9 September 2020.²⁶ The following spring, at the height of the third wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in Finland, the decision to discuss only necessary and urgent matters was renewed twice—for March²⁷ and April²⁸ 2021.

35.  Furthermore, in March 2020, parliamentary groups decided to restrict the number of Members of Parliament (MPs) in plenary sessions. A maximum of 54 MPs (out of 200) were allowed to take part in the plenary sessions; the places were distributed according to the proportion of the seats of each party. It was also decided that incidental majorities, eg due to quarantine of MPs, would not be allowed in parliamentary voting so as not to slow down the normal legislative proceedings.²⁹ From 9 September 2020 onwards, the maximum number of MPs in plenary sessions was raised to 74. The necessity of this restriction was to be reviewed at the end of September 2021.³⁰

36.  Regarding parliamentary work otherwise, the Speaker’s Council of the Parliament outlined on 24 March 2020 that MPs could work from home and follow matters digitally. Digital voting was, however, not yet then allowed.³¹

37.  In order to be prepared for the possible worsening of the Covid-19 situation, temporary amendments were made to the Standing Orders of Parliament (Eduskunnan työjärjestys)³² by a decision of the Parliament in October 2020.³³ The amendments entered into force on 1 November 2020 and expired on 30 September 2021. According to the amended Section 80(a) of the Standing Orders, the Parliament may, with a majority of two-thirds, decide that Sections 80(b) and 80(c) apply if absolutely necessary. The decision may be valid for a maximum of three months at a time. It was prescribed in Section 80(b) that parliamentary committees may hold remote official meetings using digital devices and connections. Digital voting was allowed. Section 80[c] provided, in turn, that remote voting was also allowed in plenary sessions of the Parliament. By virtue of Section 80(b), the Parliament made a decision on 14 April 2021 that parliamentary committees may hold remote meetings until 31 May 2021.³⁴ The Covid-19 situation improved shortly after the decision and therefore no need for remote meetings occurred. All in all, parliamentary committees have been able to conduct their business without any significant interruption.

38.  Because of the urgency of new Covid-19 legislation, the circulation period for receiving comments was shortened with regards to some Government bills. For instance, the Bill on Permanent and Temporary Amendments to the Communicable Diseases Act was in circulation for comments only for two weeks instead of the ordinary minimum of six weeks.³⁵

39.  There have not been any significant complaints in the press or by opposition parties that there have been disproportionate political constraints imposed on parliamentary scrutiny during the pandemic.

40.  The Emergency Powers Act does not include provisions on courts or court procedure in a state of emergency.³⁶ This is a deliberate policy that has been considered important for preserving the independence of the judiciary.³⁷ Just as during normal times, in a state of emergency, the courts and judges themselves have the authority to decide on session days and hearing dates, as well as on their suspension.

41.  Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, on 18 March 2020, the National Courts Administration of Finland (Tuomioistuinvirasto) issued guidelines in which it recommended that courts should suspend oral hearings if they cannot be held online. Only urgent cases, such as cases concerning coercive measures or criminal cases where the defendant had been detained, should always be heard even though they cannot be held online.³⁸

42.  Consequently, numerous hearings were suspended, especially in 2020. For instance, on 31 May 2020, because of the pandemic, a total of 6,077 criminal cases and 1,405 civil cases were in suspension in district courts, and 310 cases were suspended in administrative courts. A year later, by 23 May 2021, the corresponding numbers had gone down considerably to 1,226 criminal cases, 226 civil cases, and 81 administrative cases.³⁹ The impact of the pandemic on cases in administrative courts was not so significant because in most case groups the proceedings are written; oral proceedings take place mainly in forced child custody cases and immigration cases.

43.  With regards to online proceedings, already in 2019, ie before the pandemic, the possibility of participating in oral hearings online had been broadened. Prior to the reform, it was mainly witnesses that could be heard using technical video and audio communication devices. From 2019 onwards, the defendant and the injured party in criminal cases (Chapter 8, Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Ac)⁴⁰ as well as both parties in civil cases (Chapter 12, Section 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure),⁴¹ may participate in oral hearings online if they agree to it and if the court sees it fit.

44.  The National Courts Administration created guidelines on online hearings.⁴² The guidelines included instructions, for instance, on the use of different communication platforms and applications as well as on their respective data security. There are no statistics available on the number of online hearings, but according to an estimation received from the National Courts Administration of Finland their usage has increased ‘considerably’ during the pandemic, especially in criminal cases and cases concerning coercive measures.⁴³

45.  With regards to online hearings, there has not been any public debate on the possible digital divide between those citizens skilled in online usage and those who are not.

46.  Courts do not have review powers over declarations of states of emergency in Finland.

47.  Finland is among the countries that rely on the traditional ‘booth, ballot, and pen’ model of voting, based on a specific location and physical presence. This method of voting presented difficulties during the pandemic. In early March 2021, the committee of party secretaries recommended to postpone for two months the municipal elections that were originally scheduled to be held on 18 April 2021, and to extend the period for advance voting from seven to 14 days.⁴⁴ The Government made a proposition to Parliament accordingly; this was approved in late March.⁴⁵ The decision was supported by all parliamentary parties except the Finns Party (a right-wing populist party), which also proposed a no-confidence vote against the Minister of Justice.⁴⁶ The Finns Party considered that the postponing of the elections would endanger democracy and could open limitless possibilities for political abuse in the future.⁴⁷ According to many contemporary opinion polls, the Finns Party was the most popular party in March 2021.⁴⁸ The result of the vote of no-confidence was eventually in favour of the Minister of Justice, and she continued as minister.⁴⁹

48.  While the Ministry of Justice justified the need to postpone the elections mostly by the sudden and dramatic daily increase in new infections, the inability to guarantee the opportunity to vote for those in quarantine was identified as one of the key problems with the voting process.⁵⁰ Finland introduced postal voting only in 2018, restricting it to voters living abroad.⁵¹ In March 2021, the Ministry of Justice, which is the national electoral authority, argued against expanding postal voting to include domestic voters for the pandemic toolkit of Finnish elections. It stated in its memorandum that postal voting could not anyway be applied to persons who had been ordered into isolation because it requires two witnesses. The absence of witnesses would, in turn, pose a threat to electoral freedom.⁵² Unlike the Ministry of Justice, the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament urged in its report on postponing the elections the Government to explore options for expanding postal voting to situations like the pandemic in the future.⁵³

49.  In order to ensure health-safe voting, the Ministry of Justice provided several solutions, such as outdoor, drive-in, and at-home voting, available also for those in quarantine under certain conditions.⁵⁴ The Ministry prepared detailed instructions for local electoral authorities in collaboration with the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.⁵⁵ Such investments in protective measures were also welcomed by voters. The online survey titled ‘Citizen Pulse’, organized by the Government and conducted by Statistics Finland twice a month, shows that citizens’ high level of trust in the safety of voting only increased during the spring of 2021. Even more noteworthy, the initial opposition towards postponing the elections turned into support soon after the actual decision was made.⁵⁶ While advance voting (taking place from 26 May to 8 June 2021) was at a record high, the actual Election Day (13 June 2021) attracted a much more modest share of voters. As a result, the overall turnout (55.1%) was the lowest since 1945.⁵⁷ The decline was, however, largely interpreted to be caused by the timing of the voting day, ie summertime, and not the pandemic situation, which was much improved since the spring. During the summer months, the Finns tend to spend the weekends in their summer cottages.⁵⁸

50.  The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare is the key scientific advisor in respect of communicable diseases.⁵⁹ The Institute is an independent expert agency working under the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The Institute both gives scientific expert advice to authorities and has certain authoritative duties itself, such as, for instance, the duty to keep the National Communicable Diseases Register and to organize the delivery of Covid-19 vaccines to municipalities.

51.  According to the Communicable Diseases Act (Section 7(2)), the Institute ‘supports the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the regional State administrative agencies, maintains national epidemiological surveillance systems serving the control of communicable diseases, and supervises and supports the control of communicable diseases in municipalities, joint municipal authorities for hospital districts, and social welfare and health care units.’

52.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Institute was also given the duty to maintain the national mobile application called Koronavilkku to track people exposed to the virus (amended Chapter 4(a) of the Communicable Diseases Act).⁶⁰

53.  The Institute has no powers (de jure) to decide on legal responses to Covid-19, but, in practice, the authorities have by and large followed its recommendations. On a few occasions, the Institute has recommended stricter measures than the Government has been willing to adopt.⁶¹

54.  According to the Communicable Diseases Act (Section 7(2)), the Institute also has a duty to disseminate information on communicable diseases and to provide the population with recommendations for preventing infections and the spread of diseases. The Institute also has a duty to keep a register of national infectious diseases (Section 32 of the Act).⁶²

55.  In Finland, the Covid-19 pandemic did not appear to raise major threats to the freedom of the press. Overall, press freedom in Finland is not a salient problem and the country was ranked second in the World Press Freedom Index in 2021.⁶³ In some respects, the pandemic even had a positive impact on the media as the public’s trust in the main media was increased.⁶⁴ While hate speech and trolling have hampered public life in Finland,⁶⁵ in connection with the pandemic there were no major outbreaks that would have threatened freedom of the press.

56.  However, the pandemic did cause some financial strain to the press as some media outlets were laying off staff members and industry freelancers were having difficulty finding work. To alleviate the strain and to advance journalism, the Government distributed a EUR 7.5 million support package to 236 media outlets owned by 97 media companies in 2020.⁶⁶ The aid was granted to media companies, mostly to newspapers and magazines,⁶⁷ that had lost advertising revenues during the pandemic.⁶⁸ A similar kind of support is planned for the year 2021 to support independent news and current affairs.⁶⁹

57.  Throughout the pandemic, there were also concerns as to access to information. These concerns were raised especially in relation to the authorities’ communication strategies. At different points of the pandemic, the Government, especially the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, as well as the Institute for Health and Welfare, were all criticized for their inadequate dissemination of information, which also hampered the work of the press in trying to cover the policy-making.

58.  A major problem was the difficulties in delivering clear information on the authorities’ decisions. In Finland, under the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, everyone has the right of access to official documents in the public domain.⁷⁰ Accordingly, the Government was criticized on various occasions for not openly revealing the grounds for the decisions according to the Act, and Finnish news media addressed several concerns regarding access to information raised by different agencies.

59.  For example, in spring 2020, the Prime Minister’s Office’s procedures were criticized, since it had not published minutes of the Covid-19 Coordination Group.⁷¹ The Group implemented the decisions made by the Government to contain Covid-19 and to organize the work between ministries. The minutes of the Group were first kept secret,⁷² and given to the press only after a debate. In spring 2020, the Government, when using the powers of the Emergency Powers Act, was criticized for not publishing the justifications for the restrictions on people’s movement between the southern Uusimaa region and the rest of Finland.⁷³ In spring 2021, the Government also did not publish the documents of the pandemic exit strategy, and the information became public only through the Government’s decisions. The Finnish News Agency (STT) made several requests for documents to different ministries and public organizations, which responded differently to the requests: some ministries quickly distributed documents to news media, but some kept documents secret.⁷⁴ Several experts criticized these procedures since the restrictions had a considerable impact on citizens’ lives.⁷⁵

60.  The co-ordination of policies between key ministries and the THL proved to be difficult in the circumstances of the pandemic, and these difficulties were reflected in the dissemination of information. In some cases, the information from the Government was unclear and at times contradictory due to conflicting views between various authorities.⁷⁶ For instance, Government policies on the use of masks caused a major debate in 2020 as the authorities’ information was unclear and there seemed to be disagreements among the authorities on the correct policy.⁷⁷

61.  Furthermore, the leading authority on health issues, the THL, received substantial criticism starting in early spring 2020 for not disseminating information on Covid-19, and later for not revealing the scientific assumptions for its modelling that was used as a basis for policy measures.⁷⁸ The THL finally agreed to publicize the information in May 2020.⁷⁹ Later, in 2021, THL seemed to adopt a more open communication policy by giving instructions and recommendations on appropriate measures. THL was concerned, among others, about the new, more infectious variants of Covid-19. This policy was, however, somewhat confusingly criticized by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, which did not see it as appropriate. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry saw it as problematic that the THL started giving its own recommendations on appropriate measures against Covid-19 in public on matters that fell within the Government’s powers.⁸⁰

62.  There are two supreme oversight authorities of legality in Finland: the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice. Their powers and tasks overlap to a large degree. However, the Chancellor of Justice is exempted from overseeing issues concerning the defence forces, the border guard, and peacekeeping personnel.⁸¹

63.  The Parliamentary Ombudsman supervises and promotes the legality and the implementation of fundamental rights and human rights in the activities and actions of the authorities and of private parties performing public tasks. The supervisory work of the Ombudsman is mainly based on giving decisions on individual complaints and performing on-site inspections. In 2020, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received a total of 931 complaints related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The complaints concerned, among others, education, social welfare, and healthcare. In total, the Ombudsman received a record 7,059 complaints, which was approximately 800 complaints more than in 2019. Due to the pandemic, the number of on-site inspections (23) was, instead, considerably lower in 2020 than in 2019 (104).⁸²

64.  The Chancellor of Justice supervises the lawfulness of the official acts of the Government, the ministries, and the President of the Republic. The Chancellor is also responsible for ensuring that the courts of law, other authorities, and civil servants, as well as other persons or bodies assigned to perform public tasks, comply with the law and fulfil their assigned obligations. By 21 August 2020, the Chancellor had received 353 complaints and initiated 12 inquiries ex officio concerning the pandemic. The total number of complaints was over 420 complaints more than at the same time in 2019.⁸³

65.  In addition to the supreme oversight authorities, the six regional State administrative agencies are also in charge of overseeing the management of communicable diseases in their respective areas by virtue of the Communicable Diseases Act (Section 8). As has already been mentioned in Part II.C above, the agencies have executive powers regarding communicable diseases. Hence, the agencies oversee the observance of their own regional decisions. However, the agencies also oversee the municipalities’ legal responses to the pandemic. The oversight is based on complaints and inspections. The pandemic increased the workload of the agencies. In 2020, they dealt with 141 Covid-19-related matters, of which 107 were based on complaints.⁸⁴

66.  On 3 September 2020, the Government appointed an independent team to investigate the response to the Covid-19 pandemic during its first wave, ie, the response from the start until 31 July 2020. The team worked alongside the Safety Investigation Authority (Onnettomuustutkintakeskus) (OTKES) and published its investigation report on 30 June 2021. The team found several shortcomings in the actions of the authorities and recommended, among others, a reform of the contemporary crisis management model and the creation of a new model of exchange of information between the Government, regional authorities, and municipalities.⁸⁵

67.  The Finnish legal response to the pandemic can be divided into three phases which correspond to the seriousness of the Covid-19 situation. With the outbreak of the pandemic in March 2020, the first state of emergency was declared and lasted three months. During this period, traffic and movement between the southernmost province of Uusimaa and the rest of Finland was heavily restricted and restaurants and pubs were closed in the whole of Finland. These measures were introduced by the Government. The second phase started in June 2020 when the number of confirmed infections had decreased almost to zero. Instead of extensive nationwide measures, more targeted measures based on the situation in respective regions as well as increased testing and tracing was preferred—the so-called ‘hybrid’ strategy. During this second phase, the main legal responses were still largely decided by the Government. The third phase began in October 2020 as the confirmed number of infections began to rise rapidly—the second wave of the pandemic. Restrictions on restaurants and pubs became stricter again. At the height of the third wave of the pandemic, in March 2021, a state of emergency was declared for the second time. However, this time the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act were put into operation only to a small degree. There was no need to restrict domestic travelling or close restaurants and pubs in the whole country.⁸⁶

68.  The hybrid strategy is based on a classification of three epidemiologic phases:

1. a.  Stable level – local and regional transmission chains occur only occasionally, and incidence is low. Transmission chains are manageable, and the exposed individuals can be traced without delay.

2. a.  Acceleration phase – there are many local and regional transmission chains, and incidence is higher than at the stable level, ie the percentage of individuals testing positive is above one and large-scale exposures occur.

3. b.  Community transmission phase – the percentage of individuals testing positive is above two and that the need for inpatient and intensive hospital care is projected to increase. Contact tracing becomes more difficult.⁸⁷

69.  The Emergency Powers Act (Section 118) makes it possible for the Government to issue a decree to temporarily restrict or forbid stays and movement in specified areas or regions if deemed necessary for the prevention of a danger seriously threatening the lives or health of the people. In practice, this provision would allow the Government to impose curfews and stay-at-home orders. Furthermore, Section 23 of the Constitution would also enable the Parliament to pass an act or the Government to issue a decree to impose similar measures. Hence, both provisions could be used to order a curfew.

70.  At the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020, the Government strongly recommended that all those aged 70 and older should avoid close contact with others and stay at home in quarantine-like conditions.⁸⁸ Some municipalities and federations of municipalities made short-term recommendations to stay at home and limit contacts to a minimum when there appeared to be a sudden increase in the Covid-19 infections locally or regionally.⁸⁹

71.  In March 2021, at the height of the third wave, the Government presented the Parliament with a Bill for an Act on Temporary Restriction of Movement and Close Contacts by virtue of Section 23 of the Constitution.⁹⁰ According to the bill, the proposed act would have authorized the Government to issue decrees on individual municipalities or regions where people’s movement outside their homes would have been forbidden (ie, a curfew). The period of validity of such decrees would have been limited to 21 days at a time. However, the bill did not pass the review of the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament. In its statement on the bill, the Committee stated that with regards to the contemporary Covid-19 situation the prohibition of movement was not necessary and, on the contrary, would have entailed a disproportionate intervention on the freedom of movement. The Committee also saw that the provisions of the proposed act were unclear and complex, with numerous exceptions. The Committee argued that the same aims could be reached with more focused bans and restrictions on private occasions, public gatherings, and shopping.⁹¹ Consequently, the Government withdrew the bill.

72.  In conclusion, no mandatory curfews or stay-at-home measures have been imposed in Finland during the pandemic.

73.  On 17 March 2020, the Government made a decision to reintroduce border control at European Union (EU) internal borders temporarily between 19 March–13 April 2020.⁹² The decision was based on Section 15 of the Border Guard Act.⁹³ According to the decision, entry into Finland would only be allowed for Finnish nationals, non-nationals residing in Finland, non-nationals residing in another EU Member State (transit travel via Finland), essential work/business travelling, other necessary travelling, and freight traffic. The validity of the decision has been extended numerous times by a new decision, for a maximum of 30 days at a time.⁹⁴ Some changes to the original decision have, of course, been made during the course of the pandemic, such as a loosening of the conditions of entry from individual countries depending on their respective Covid-19 situations. However, the main principles of the regulation of entry have stayed more or less the same. On 8 July 2021, the Government decided to end the border control at EU internal borders when a new entry model was introduced (see Part IV.A.2 below).⁹⁵

74.  On 17 March 2020, the Government also made a decision to restrict travelling and traffic at EU external borders temporarily between 19 March and 13 April 2020.⁹⁶ This decision was based on Section 16 of the Border Guard Act. The contents of the restrictions were the same as at EU internal borders. This decision has likewise been extended and changed numerous times during the pandemic.⁹⁷

75.  In April 2020, Professor Martin Scheinin filed a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice against the Government’s decisions from 17 March 2020. He claimed in the complaint that the wording of the decisions, in particular the phrase ‘other necessary travelling’, was unclear and thus gave border authorities too much discretion, especially in light of the freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution (Section 9) and free movement of persons under EU law. In his decision, the Chancellor found that no infringement of these freedoms had taken place although the Government’s decisions could have been clearer in their wording and the respective memoranda better justified.⁹⁸

76.  The Government’s decisions to uphold border control and the strict entry conditions at EU internal borders has also caused friction between Finland and Estonia because of the high number of Estonians working in Finland and commuting between the two countries. In June 2021, all seven Estonian Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) appealed jointly to the European Commission about the Finnish travel restrictions.⁹⁹

77.  In order to get rid of the questionable border control at EU internal borders, the Government introduced a Bill on Temporary Amendments to the Communicable Diseases Act and the Act on Transport Services by 1 October 2020, in which it proposed that the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare would have the authority to make decisions by which passengers arriving from high-risk countries would have needed to present a recent negative PCR test result or a proof of recovery from Covid-19.¹⁰⁰ However, the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament stated that the bill was too poorly prepared to be discussed in the Parliament.¹⁰¹ As a consequence, the Government withdrew the bill. In the following year, the Government introduced a new Bill on Temporary Amendments to the Communicable Diseases Act, in which a revised entry model was proposed.¹⁰² This time, the Parliament accepted the bill with minor changes on 2 July 2021, and the Communicable Diseases Act was amended accordingly.¹⁰³ Basically, persons arriving to Finland from high-risk countries need to present a certificate of: (1) full vaccination (two doses) received at least 14 days earlier; (2) a negative test result no more than 72 hours old; or (3) recovery from Covid-19 six months earlier at the most. If a person fails to present any of these certificates, they must submit themselves to a Covid-19 test at the border and again within 72–120 hours after entry. The amended provisions also include some exceptions to these main rules. The amendments are valid until 15 October 2021.

78.  High-risk countries are defined by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare in its instructions from 4 February 2021, ie countries where the incidence is more than 25 per 100,000 inhabitants within last 14 days.¹⁰⁴

79.  The Communicable Diseases Act (Section 15) authorizes regional State administrative agencies to give orders to municipalities to conduct targeted health inspections at various locations, including border checkpoints. The agencies may also give orders on mandatory health inspections (Section 16) if deemed necessary to prevent the spread of a generally hazardous communicable disease. In March 2021, the provision on mandatory health inspections was amended to clarify that mandatory inspections can be ordered of both individuals and groups of persons. The amendment also authorized municipal physicians responsible for communicable diseases to decide on mandatory inspections of individual persons.¹⁰⁵

80.  By virtue of Section 16 of the Communicable Diseases Act, all regional State administrative agencies have, indeed, already given orders on mandatory health inspections at borders before the new entry model. For instance, the regional State administrative agency for Southern Finland issued an order on 17 March 2021 that all passengers arriving to Finland from high-risk countries via Helsinki-Vantaa airport, Helsinki Harbour, and Vaalimaa land border checkpoint must submit themselves to an inspection.¹⁰⁶ The inspection may entail a Covid-19 test if the passenger cannot present a negative test result (of a maximum 72 hours old) or a proof of recovery from Covid-19 (less than six months old). A passenger who refuses the inspection can be placed in a quarantine for 14 days by an order of a municipal physician. The order was valid from 18 to 31 March 2021, but it was extended with new orders for one month at a time.¹⁰⁷ Other regional State administrative agencies gave similar orders for their respective territories.¹⁰⁸

81.  Already before the new entry model, there was a strong recommendation by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare to those who were arriving in Finland from high-risk countries to avoid contact with people other than those living in the same household or place of lodging until they have had a negative result from a Covid-19 test conducted no earlier than 72 hours after the arrival.¹⁰⁹

82.  At no point have people been prohibited from leaving Finland. There has only been a strong recommendation by the Government to avoid all unnecessary travel abroad in general. As for individual countries where the Covid-19 situation has been bad, it has been recommended to avoid travel to these countries altogether.

83.  With regards to domestic travel, the Government has restricted travel only once during the outbreak of the Covid-19 in March 2020. By virtue of Section 118 of the Emergency Powers Act, the Government issued a Decree on Temporary Restrictions on Movement to Protect the Population on 27 March 2020.¹¹⁰ The Decree prohibited traffic and movement between the southernmost province of Uusimaa and the rest of Finland with some exceptions such as travel concerning official duties and positions of trust, work and business, studies, military service, care of close relatives, and visitation rights. The decree was valid from 28 March to 19 April 2020.

84.  This decree brought about complaints with the Parliament Ombudsman. Many complaints concerned the actions of the police in the monitoring of the prohibition. For instance, whether police had interpreted the wording of the decree, ‘care of close relatives’, correctly,¹¹¹ how far from the Uusimaa border the police could pull over cars,¹¹² and if the police’s practice to impose fines was lawful.¹¹³

85.  The Communicable Diseases Act (Section 58) authorizes the municipal body responsible for the control of communicable diseases to prohibit general meetings and public events in the municipality’s territory. The regional State administrative agencies may make corresponding decisions in their respective jurisdictions when prohibitions are needed for an area covering several municipalities. Decisions can only be made for a maximum of one month at a time.

86.  All six regional State administrative agencies decided already on 17 March 2020 that all general meetings and public events with more than 10 people were prohibited.¹¹⁴ New decisions have been given throughout the pandemic, and the number of maximum people has varied mainly from six to 50 people depending on the existing epidemiological situation. In July 2020, indoor public events with up to 500 people as well as outdoor public events with even more than 500 people were allowed if special arrangements were followed.¹¹⁵

87.  On 24 August 2020, when the first signs of the second wave of the pandemic had appeared, the agencies made decisions on restrictions for public events for September 2020. The decisions were made after the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health had first sent general instructions for the agencies.¹¹⁶ Shortly after the agencies’ decisions, their legitimacy was questioned. At least one appeal got all the way to the Supreme Administrative Court. In its judgment, the Court concurred with the judgment of the Administrative Court stating that the appellant did not have the right to appeal because the decision of the agency had not directly concerned their rights or duties.¹¹⁷ The Chancellor of Justice also received complaints in which, among others, the authority of the Ministry to give such instructions was questioned. The Chancellor gave his decision on 21 September 2020 in which he stated that the Ministry had not exceeded its powers because the instructions were not meant as binding.¹¹⁸

88.  In June 2021, for the first time during the pandemic, some regional State administrative agencies were able to make decisions to revoke the restrictions on general meetings and publics events altogether because of the favourable incidence figures in their respective territories.¹¹⁹

89.  Neither the Communicable Diseases Act nor any other law authorize the regional State administrative agencies or other authorities to set restrictions on private gatherings and events. The Government has recommended, however, that the same restrictions on public events should be followed also in private gatherings and festivities.¹²⁰

90.  In addition to prohibiting public events, the Communicable Diseases Act (Section 58) authorizes the municipal body responsible for the control of communicable diseases to close social and health care units, educational institutions, day care centres, residential apartments, and other similar facilities in the municipality’s territory. The regional State administrative agencies may make corresponding decisions in their respective jurisdictions when the decisions are needed for an area covering several municipalities. Decisions can only be made for a maximum of one month at a time.

91.  All six regional State administrative agencies decided on 17 March 2020 that all schools, polytechnics, universities, and other educational institutions were to be closed in the whole country. Teaching was organised online and using digital learning platforms. However, children in preschool education, from first to third grade, and whose parents were in critical line of work (eg healthcare professionals) could continue to go to school.¹²¹ The general closure ended on 14 May 2020 through the regional State administrative agencies decisions.¹²² During the second and third wave of the pandemic, in autumn 2020 and spring 2021, individual municipalities made temporary decisions on closures of and distance teaching in lower and upper secondary schools.

92.  When the pandemic broke out in March 2020 and the first state of emergency (16 March–15 June 2020) was declared (see Part II.A above), it appeared that neither the Emergency Powers Act nor the Communicable Diseases Act included provisions that would have enabled the authorities to close establishments serving food and/or drinks in case of a pandemic. New legislation was thus needed. By virtue of Section 23 of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted a temporary amendment to the Act on Accommodation and Food Service Activities.¹²³ Through the amendment, premises of all restaurants, bars, pubs, cafes, etc, were closed in the entire country. Takeaway sale was allowed, however, and the closure did not apply to canteens. The closure was effective from 4 April until 31 May 2020. During the second state of emergency (1 March–27 April 2021), the Act on Accommodation and Food Service Activities was temporarily amended again.¹²⁴ This time, the closure lasted from 29 March until 18 April 2021. Unlike the first closure, the second closure was limited by a Government decree to 14 provinces and one municipality where the closure was considered necessary because of the regional Covid-19 situations.¹²⁵ Later, the regional scope of the original decree was curbed with two amending decrees.¹²⁶

93.  The Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament required already in its statement on the first Bill on the Temporary Amendment to the Act on Accommodation and Food Service Activities that the losses brought by the closure should be compensated to the establishments.¹²⁷ As a consequence, the Parliament passed an Act on Re-Employment Subsidies and Compensations for Losses of Restaurants,¹²⁸ which entered into force on 5 June 2020 by a Government’s implementing decree.¹²⁹ By the end on June 2021, almost EUR 60 million of subsidies and compensations had been paid to restaurants.¹³⁰

94.  In addition to closures, the opening hours of restaurants have been restricted throughout the pandemic. This has been done by virtue of a temporary amendment to the Communicable Diseases Act.¹³¹ The precise restrictions have been implemented by several consecutive Government decrees, the validity of which has ranged from one to three months.¹³²

95.  Furthermore, a temporary amendment to the Communicable Diseases Act authorized municipal physicians responsible for communicable diseases as well as regional State administrative agencies to also close sports facilities for 14 days at a time.¹³³ Indeed, some regional State administrative agencies made such decisions. For instance, on 31 March 2021, the Regional State Administrative Agency for Southern Finland made a decision by which sports facilities, public swimming pools, dance halls, amusement parks, indoor play centres, etc, were to be closed for two weeks. Children born in 2008 and after, professional athletes, and private activities were exempted from the closure.¹³⁴

96.  Early on, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare recommended that people should voluntarily hold a one to two metre distance between each other whenever possible. In January 2021, when the knowledge of more contagious Covid-19 variants began to emerge, the Institute recommended that the distance should be more than two metres.¹³⁵

97.  Later, in February 2021, the two-metre rule also found its way into legislation. According to a temporary amendment to the Communicable Diseases Act, both municipal boards responsible for the prevention of communicable diseases and regional State administrative agencies may give, in their respective jurisdictions, binding decisions on the use of public and commercial premises and the number of people indoors so that close contact, ie distances shorter than two metres and over 15 minutes, could be avoided.¹³⁶ The provision does not apply to schools nor homes. Such a decision can only be made if the incidence is regionally more than 25 per 100,000 inhabitants and there are untraceable clusters of infections. A decision may only be in force for one month at a time. Many regional State administrative agencies gave, indeed, such decisions during spring 2021.¹³⁷

98.  The use of face masks has not been compulsory at any point. However, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has strongly recommended their use whenever close contact cannot be avoided.¹³⁸

99.  As explained in Part IV.A.1 above, in March 2021, the Government introduced the Parliament a Bill for an Act on Temporary Restriction of Movement and Close Contacts.¹³⁹ The proposed act would have authorized the Government to issue decrees on individual municipalities or regions where people’s movement outside their homes would have been forbidden. If movement outside one’s home could not be avoided, eg food shopping, the use of a face mask indoors and on public transport would have been obligatory. The Constitutional Law Committee did not see in its statement any principled constitutional problems in the compulsory use of face mask per se, but the bill was considered unconstitutional for other reasons.¹⁴⁰ Even though the Government withdrew the bill, from March 2021 onwards, most traffic companies began to require all passengers over 12 years old to wear a face mask.¹⁴¹

100.  The Communicable Diseases Act includes provisions on both isolation of an infected person (eristäminen, Section 63) and quarantine of a person exposed to a generally hazardous communicable disease (karanteeni, Section 60). In both cases, the decision must be made by a municipal physician responsible for communicable diseases and the prerequisites for making the decisions are the same, ie ‘there is an obvious risk of the spread of a generally hazardous communicable disease or a disease that is justifiably suspected of being generally hazardous, and the spread of the disease cannot be prevented by other means.’

101.  Regarding Covid-19, the length of legally imposed quarantine is usually 14 days and the quarantine cannot be shortened by taking a Covid-19 test. During a quarantine and an isolation, outdoor activities are allowed as long as the individual keeps a two-metre distance from others. Going to the workplace, shopping, outdoor hobbies, etc, are not allowed.¹⁴²

102.  Municipal physicians have ordered individuals and larger groups into quarantine on numerous occasions. Such quarantines have concerned, for instance, entire school classes,¹⁴³ students of educational institutions,¹⁴⁴ grocery workers,¹⁴⁵ and ice hockey teams.¹⁴⁶ In 2020, a total of 81,343 people were ordered into quarantine, and the number is estimated to be much higher for 2021.¹⁴⁷

103.  In addition to legally binding quarantines, there was a strong recommendation by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare to those arriving in Finland from high-risk countries to voluntarily avoid contact with people other than those living in the same household or place of lodging until they have had a negative result from a Covid-19 test conducted no earlier than 72 hours after the arrival.¹⁴⁸ However, this voluntary quarantine became mandatory when the new entry to Finland model was introduced in July 2021 (see Part IV.A.2 above). The 72-hour quarantine is not necessary if one can present a valid Covid-19 certificate at the border.

104.  Soon after the outbreak of Covid-19, on 9 April 2020, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health drew up a National Covid-19 Testing Strategy that was based on the principle of: ‘test – track – treat’. According to the strategy, the testing capacity was quickly to be increased to 10,000 tests per day. Testing was aimed, among others, at anyone seeking medical care and experiencing symptoms, social welfare and healthcare personnel when there was even the slightest suspicion of infection, high-risk groups when there was a suspicion of infection or exposure to the virus, and persons belonging to the close circle of an infected person.¹⁴⁹

105.  Testing is voluntary as a premise. Anyone having at least one of the symptoms of Covid-19 infection were advised to get themselves tested. However, there are also two types of mandatory tests. First, by virtue of Section 16 of the Communicable Diseases Act, regional State administrative agencies and municipal physicians responsible for communicable diseases have the authority to order mandatory health inspections, including taking a Covid-19 test. Indeed, some agencies have ordered such inspections.¹⁵⁰ Second, in July 2021, Covid-19 testing was made mandatory by the law itself (ipso jure) for those arriving in Finland without a Covid-19 certificate (see Part IV.A.2 above).

106.  Testing is free of charge in cases of a suspected infection and on entry into Finland. However, if an individual needs a negative test result to travel abroad, they were required to take a test with a private sector laboratory that charges for the test. One can claim part of those costs as reimbursement from the Social Insurance Institution of Finland.

107.  According to the Communicable Diseases Act (Section 18), testing of communicable disease requires an operating licence issued by regional State administrative agencies. Licences can be issued to both public and private laboratories. In June 2020, the agencies published a summary of relevant regulation of and requirements for testing for laboratories.¹⁵¹

108.  Indeed, both public and private laboratories have carried out Covid-19 testing. There occurred some problems locally in testing capacity in autumn 2020, when the holiday season ended, and people got back to work and school. The aim was to raise the capacity to 20,000 tests per day so that everyone could be guaranteed a test result within 24 hours.¹⁵² By 28 July 2021, a total of 5,847,800 Covid-19 tests had been done in Finland, and 104,495 samples had been found positive (ca 1.78%).¹⁵³

109.  Finland was involved in all of the European Union’s purchases of Covid-19 vaccines, and the vaccination of the population began in Finland on 27 December 2020.¹⁵⁴ According to Section 45 of the Communicable Diseases Act, the Government is responsible for deciding on general voluntary vaccinations, and it is the responsibility of the municipalities to organise them. Section 47 of the Act authorizes the Government to also decide on mandatory vaccinations, but Covid-19 does not fulfil the criteria set for them.

110.  The vaccination order of the population was defined in the Government Decree on Voluntary Covid-19 Vaccinations.¹⁵⁵ The order of prioritization was the following: (1) social welfare and health care professionals working with infected or suspected Covid-19 patients or in nursing homes and units of supported accommodation; (2) individuals 70 years old and older; (3) people belonging to younger age groups who have diseases exposing them to serious forms of Covid-19; and (4) the rest of the population starting from older age groups and proceeding towards the younger ones. In March 2021, the National Expert Group on Vaccinations recommended that the distribution of vaccines should be prioritized based on the epidemic situation and number of populations in different regions.¹⁵⁶ As a consequence, the Decree on Voluntary Covid-19 Vaccination was temporarily amended (valid from 19 April to 31 May 2021) accordingly.¹⁵⁷ At the same time, the decree was also amended so that election officials were equated with the social welfare and health care professionals to guarantee the safety of voting in municipal elections (see Part III.D above).¹⁵⁸

111.  On 30 March 2021, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received dozens of complaints concerning the right to choose between different Covid-19 vaccines. The complaints were brought about by the instructions of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare given on 24 March 2021. According to the instructions, AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccines could still be used on 65-year-olds and over but not on younger age groups because the link between said vaccine and the reported rare blood coagulation cases was still unclear.¹⁵⁹ Later, on 18 May 2021, the Institute gave further instructions saying that those 65-year-olds and over who had initially received AstraZeneca as their first dose of the vaccine should be offered said vaccine as their second dose.¹⁶⁰ Many municipalities took these instructions as binding and therefore offered only AstraZeneca to 65 to 69-year-olds, ie the age group whose turn it happened to be to take the vaccine at the time. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman recognised that these instructions subjected 65 to 69-year-olds to age discrimination. Furthermore, they had also been deprived of their right to self-determination as patients. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman concluded that although the Institute had based its instructions on sound medical knowledge and consideration, it had nevertheless neglected its duty to also carry out a juridical consideration. Correspondingly, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health had neglected its lawful duty to steer and monitor the actions of the Institute. Both the Institute and the Ministry were reprimanded.¹⁶¹

112.  By 3 August 2021, 66.2 % of the population had received their first dose, and 35.2 % both doses.¹⁶²

113.  As a part of the Government’s ‘hybrid strategy’ (see Part IV above), a Covid-19 contact tracing mobile app called Koronavilkku was launched on 31 August 2020 by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Its legal basis is a temporary amendment (Chapter 4a) to the Communicable Diseases Act.¹⁶³ The amendment is meant to be valid from 31 August 2020 until 31 December 2021. The app is downloadable free of charge and its use is voluntary.

114.  The enactment of the temporary amendment did not raise any major controversy. However, in its Statement on the Bill (101/2020 vp) the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament required a few changes in the bill before it could be passed in the normal enactment procedure. First, the provisions must be made clearer so that ordering a person into quarantine could not solely be based on the information provided by the mobile app, and that the authorities could not use the information for any other purposes than tracing contacts. Second, the provisions on the giving and cancellation of the user’s consent were also to be clarified.¹⁶⁴

115.  Later, a further amendment to the temporary Chapter 4a of the Communicable Diseases Act was made to allow the compatibility of the Koronavilkku mobile app with other countries’ corresponding apps in cross-border situations.¹⁶⁵

116.  Already on 20 March 2020, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health issued instructions on Covid-19-related preventive measures in round-the-clock care facilities. The instructions were later updated on 9 April and 15 May 2020. The instructions included guidelines on how to protect both clients and personnel from being infected, for instance, by room arrangements, work shift arrangements, hygiene procedures, and prohibitions on visits.¹⁶⁶

117.  On 16 June 2020, the Ministry further issued separate instructions on visits to social welfare and health care units during the Covid-19 epidemic.¹⁶⁷ According to the instructions, directors of units could prohibit visits to the units if need be. The legal basis for prohibitions was provided, allegedly, by Section 17 of the Communicable Diseases Act which demands unit directors, on a general level, prevent infections in their units.

118.  The Ministry’s instructions as well as individual decisions to prohibit visits were soon called into question by family members of patients. Consequently, complaints were lodged with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Regarding several complaints on, among others, visit prohibitions, the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman concluded in her decision that the instructions on visit prohibitions issued by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health were incorrect. The instruction gave unit directors a false impression that the instruction would have been legally binding. This, in turn, had led to the outcome that prohibitions and restrictions on visits to round-the-clock care facilities were unlawful and without legal basis. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman urged the Ministry to immediately begin law drafting to amend legislation.¹⁶⁸ By 2 July 2021, no amendments to the Communicable Diseases Act have been made.

119.  Unit directors’ decisions to prohibit or restrict visits also lead to appeals being made to administrative courts. For instance, the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland gave a ruling in which it came to more or less the same conclusion as the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman: the municipality’s instructions were not legally binding, and the decision to restrict the meetings between the appellant and their mother lacked legal basis and was thus unlawful.¹⁶⁹

120.  According to Section 2 of Chapter 44 of the Criminal Code,¹⁷⁰ a person who does not abide by a decision made by virtue of the Communicable Diseases Act on a mandatory health inspection (Section 16), quarantine (Section 60), or isolation (Section 63) can be sentenced for a health protection violation to a fine or to imprisonment for a maximum of three months. The media has reported about individual cases where fines have been imposed.¹⁷¹ Furthermore, while the new model of entry to Finland was introduced in July 2021 (see Part IV.A.2 above), the Communicable Diseases Act was also amended with a new temporary provision (Section 87a) according to which anyone who deliberately or out of gross carelessness neglects their obligation to take a Covid-19 test, can be sentenced for a Covid-19 test violation to a fine.

121.  According to temporary Section 58b of the Communicable Diseases Act, the regional State administrative agencies can order restaurants to be closed for a month if they fail to abide by the decisions imposed on them on restricting the opening hours and/or number of clients. If necessary, the police will provide the agencies with executive assistance. The agencies have temporarily closed several restaurants on the basis of Section 58b.¹⁷² Moreover, if authoritative decisions concerning restrictions on the number of clients in premises other than restaurants (Section 58d), the closing of social welfare and healthcare units, schools and nurseries, shopping centres, sports venues, etc (Sections 58 and 58g), restrictions on number of passengers in transport services (Section 58f), and safety plans to restrict the spread of Covid-19 (Section 58h) are not complied with, the respective authorities (regional State administrative authorities, Finnish Transport and Communications Agency, and the municipalities) can impose conditional fines by virtue of Section 59c of the Act.

122.  The Finnish Defence Forces have played only a minor role in enforcing Covid-19 measures. According to Section 1 of the Act on the Defence Force’s Executive Assistance to the Police,¹⁷³ the Defence Forces are obliged to provide executive assistance for the police, among others, in traffic control. In order to monitor the travel prohibition between Uusimaa and the rest of Finland in March–April 2020 (see Part IV.A.2 above), the police requested executive assistance from the Defence Forces. A total of some 800 conscripts and 50 regulars participated in the monitoring of the prohibition. During the operation, the police gave a total of 177 fines for the breach of the prohibition. Some of them were later found to be unwarranted (see Part IV.A.2 above).¹⁷⁴

123.  Compliance with the public health measures is a manifold phenomenon influenced by many factors. One of the most important factors affecting compliance is citizens’ trust in the Government and the authorities in general. The citizens’ trust in experts and authorities during the course of the pandemic has been studied in Finland. For instance, in one study the citizens’ trust was studied in four online panel surveys in April 2020, June 2020, October 2020, and March 2021 (N=1052–1151). The surveys showed, among others, that ca 70% of the respondents considered scientific experts, ie university professors and experts of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, to be the most trustworthy in managing the pandemic. With regards to institutions—the Government, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, regional State administrative agencies, and the THL—there occurred one particularly interesting change in the trust during the one-year study period. While still in spring and summer of 2020, some 70% of the respondents considered that the Government had done ‘very well’ or ‘fairly well’ in the management of the crisis, but in March 2021 that number had come down to a little over 50%. The trust in the Ministry also decreased, although not as significantly. No significant change in the trust in regional authorities took place. In contrast, there appeared to be a slight increase in trust in the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.¹⁷⁵

124.  A recent international comparative study was based on an online survey investigating the compliance with public health measures in 11 countries. The study was carried out in autumn 2020, and a total of 9,543 responses were received. The respondents were asked about their personal compliance with regards to 44 different public health measures. The study showed that the Finnish (and Indian) respondents reported the highest average compliance (80%) with all measures. The study also showed that the Finns had the highest trust in the Government as well as the health care system. In general, the study concluded that ‘more trust in the national Government that is perceived to take care of its citizens predicts an increase in compliance with most measures’.¹⁷⁶

125.  The results of opinion surveys carried out in Finland seem to concur with the results on the above international comparative study. For instance, according to an opinion survey (N=1,044) carried out in November 2020, over 70% of respondents said that they wear face masks in public transportation and in other situations where required social distancing is not possible.¹⁷⁷

126.  Unemployment increased rapidly during the first months of the pandemic. During January and February 2020, the number of unemployed jobseekers was about 250,000, and by April it had risen to about 430,000. In June 2020, the curve started to fall and by November 2021 the number of unemployed jobseekers reached about the same level as in February 2020.¹⁷⁸ Compared to 2019, overall social expenditure rose by 4.9% in 2020. However, the biggest change was witnessed in regard to unemployment security expenditure, which rose by 35% from about EUR 4 billion to 5.3 billion.¹⁷⁹ The existing social protection system was reasonably well-equipped for tackling the socio-economic problems caused by the pandemic. Instead of having to introduce a variety of new benefits, only two new ones were created and some of the existing ones were modified to a lesser extent.

127.  A new benefit—the first of the two completely new ones—called the Temporary Epidemic Assistance (määräaikainen epidemiatuki) was introduced for families with children. The benefit was payable to a parent who was forced to take leave from work in order to take care of a child (third grader at the oldest) at home. The benefit was also available for those returning from abroad and having to stay away from work because of being referred to quarantine-like conditions. The benefit was EUR 723.50 (circa USD 788) per month. The legislative act governing the new benefit was valid until 31 August 2020.¹⁸⁰ A total of 2,936 persons received this benefit and the total expenditure was circa EUR 1.6 million (USD 1.74 million).¹⁸¹

128.  On 30 September 2020, the Parliament passed a new Act on a Temporary Epidemic Allowance (väliaikainen epidemiakorvaus),¹⁸² the second of the two new benefits introduced during the pandemic. The purpose of the allowance was to support individuals and families in a poor economic situation and to compensate for the costs caused by the Covid-19 restrictions. The amount of the allowance was EUR 75 (USD 82) per person per month, and it was payable from September to December 2020—the September payment was paid retrospectively. The allowance was automatically paid to those who had received means-tested basic income support (perustoimeentulotuki) between 1 March and 31 July 2020, and who still had the right to basic income support during the month preceding the payment month. In October 2020, some 130,000 households received the allowance.¹⁸³ In 2020, the number of basic income support recipients was 5.2% higher than in 2019.¹⁸⁴

129.  If a basic income support recipient neglects their activation responsibilities, ie, actively looking for work or participating in relevant employment training programmes, the basic amount of the basic income support can be reduced by up to 20%. If the neglect is continuous, a reduction of up to 40% can be made. In March 2020, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA), which is responsible for paying the basic income support, decided to temporarily not make any reductions to the basic amount. This policy was valid until February 2021.¹⁸⁵

130.  In individual cases, the pandemic caused some uncertainty in regard to housing allowances paid by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA). The Insurance Court ruled on 16 January 2023 that a person living in a nursing home who had moved to her parents’ home because of Covid-19 and personal health issues was nevertheless entitled to the housing allowance for pensioners because she continued paying rent to the nursing home. The Social Insurance Institution had previously suspended the allowance because it considered that the nursing home was no longer her permanent residence.¹⁸⁶

131.  In Finland, school meals are free of charge. This is based on Section 16 of the Constitution of Finland, which prescribes that everyone has a right to free basic education. The system of free school meals is thus not part of the welfare administration but instead educational administration. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning here that during the pandemic the Finnish National Agency for Education (OPH) issued instructions on the organizing of school meals in case of distance teaching. Instead of eating at school, the students should be asked to fetch meal packages from school. Free school meals could not be replaced by monetary compensation.¹⁸⁷

132.  Labour market subsidy (työmarkkinatuki) is an unemployment benefit that is intended for unemployed persons who (a) enter the labour market for the first time, (b) have not worked long enough to be entitled to unemployment allowance, or (c) have exhausted their right to basic or earnings-related unemployment allowance because the maximum payment period has been reached. The labour market subsidy is not actually a contributory benefit, but because it is not classified as a social assistance benefit in Finland, it will be discussed under social insurance here. Normally, self-employed persons are not entitled to the labour market subsidy unless they close down their business entirely. In April 2020, the Parliament passed a temporary amendment¹⁸⁸ to the Unemployment Security Act (1290/2002). The amendment was valid from 8 April until 30 June 2020, and it was renewed six times. The last temporary amendment expired on 28 February 2022.¹⁸⁹ According to each amendment, in order to be entitled to labour market subsidy, self-employed persons were not required to close down their business. Instead, it sufficed that the business had ceased altogether because of the pandemic or, alternatively, the business income had reduced to less than EUR 1,089 per self-employed person per month. Furthermore, the labour market subsidy was payable without the normal waiting period of 21 weeks for persons without vocational training (odotusaika).

133.  Several other types of temporary amendments were also made to the unemployment system in April 2020. For instance, temporarily laid off workers were given a right to study and engage in entrepreneurship without losing their right to unemployment benefits.¹⁹⁰ Furthermore, the waiting period of five days (omavastuuaika) for all unemployment benefits was temporarily lifted. The work requirement of 26 weeks (työssäoloehto) was shortened to 13 weeks. If the daily unemployment allowance (työttömyyspäiväraha) was paid on the basis of a temporary layoff, this was not taken into account in the calculation of the maximum payment period.¹⁹¹ The maximum amount of protected income, ie, the amount that an unemployed person is allowed to earn without losing their right to unemployment benefits, was temporarily raised from EUR 300 to EUR 500 per month.¹⁹² The period of validity of each amendment varied. In most cases the validity of the temporary amendment ended 30 November 2021, but the lifting of the five-day waiting period was valid until 28 February 2022.¹⁹³

134.  In December 2020, the Sickness Insurance Act (1224/2004) was temporarily amended to include the costs of taking a Covid-19 test as a reimbursable cost.¹⁹⁴ In March 2021, taking the Covid-19 vaccine—the actual vaccine and travelling cost to a healthcare unit—were also temporarily included as reimbursable costs.¹⁹⁵ The reimbursement covers only part of the costs, and it only concerns Covid-19 tests and vaccines that are acquired privately. As explained in Part IV.A.8 above, testing and vaccines within public healthcare are free of charge. For now, these temporary amendments are valid until 30 June 2023.

135.  According to Chapter 8, Section 1a of the Sickness Insurance Act, a person has a right to the Communicable Disease Allowance (tartuntatautipäiväraha) if they have been ordered by a municipal doctor to stay away from work or received a quarantine or an isolation order. The same applies to a guardian of a child under the age of 16, if the child has been ordered to remain at home in quarantine or in isolation, and the guardian is therefore prevented from working.¹⁹⁶ In February 2022, the conditions were temporarily eased so that instead of needing an official order from a municipal doctor, a positive result from a Covid-19 test performed in a laboratory would suffice for getting the allowance.¹⁹⁷

136.  The Covid-19 pandemic did not really have an impact on legislation for pension benefits. However, the Finnish Centre for Pensions (Eläketurvakeskus) gave recommendations concerning work disability pensions. According to the recommendations, if a healthcare professional was ordered to work by virtue of the Emergency Powers Act (for a maximum of two weeks) while on disability pension, the pay would not affect the amount of their disability pension. The recommendations were valid from 20 March to 31 August 2020.¹⁹⁸

137.  In April 2020, the Parliament passed an Act on the Temporary Reduction of the Insurance Premium of the Employees Pensions Act.¹⁹⁹ The Act was based on an agreement between the social partners. According to the Act, the employer’s share of the insurance premium was reduced by 2.6 percentage points—from 25.3% to 22.7% of one’s gross salary. The reduction was valid from 1 May until 31 December 2020. The purpose of the reduction was to ease the financial strain on private employers caused by the pandemic. The temporary deficit of the pension funds caused by the reduction will be compensated later by gradually raising the premium between 2022 and 2025. No temporary changes were made in the unemployment insurance premiums or sickness insurance premiums because of Covid-19.

138.  In December 2021, the Parliament decided to temporarily exempt Covid-19 self-testing kits from value added tax.²⁰⁰ The temporary amendment of the Value Added Tax Act was valid throughout 2022. Furthermore, the costs of using a mask on journeys to and from work were accepted as deductible commuting expenses in taxation (maximum EUR 2 per day), and the costs of using a mask at work were accepted as revenue acquisition expenses in taxation. Both tax reliefs were valid as long as the recommendation to wear masks was valid, ie, between 13 August 2020 and 14 April 2022.²⁰¹

139.  The Government’s economic support for employers was extensive and multichannel. The State Treasury paid in total EUR 1.09 billion in Covid-19 subsidies to almost 29,000 businesses.²⁰² Furthermore, regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centres) also granted about EUR 326 million worth of subsidies to enterprises.²⁰³ Employers were also supported by Business Finland which is a governmental agency offering innovation funding and internationalization services as well as promoting tourism and investments in Finland.²⁰⁴ Business Finland granted EUR 994 million for businesses.²⁰⁵

140.  Economic support for employers was channelled in various forms—state subsidies, state guarantees, and state loans. Four types of state subsidies were paid to employers. The first one was called ‘cost subsidy’ (kustannustuki) and it was payable to businesses whose monthly turnover had decreased by more than 30% compared to the average monthly turnover during the reference period of March–June 2019. Furthermore, the total turnover during the reference period had to have been EUR 20,000. The cost subsidy was paid by the State Treasury and the maximum amount of the support was EUR 500,000 per business. The subsidy was first implemented by an Act on Temporary Cost Subsidy for Businesses in April 2020, and the validity of the provisions on the support was extended five times so that the last subsidy month was February 2022. Also, some amendments to the eligibility conditions were made along the way.²⁰⁶ The second state subsidy was called the ‘event guarantee’ (tapahtumatakuu) and it was also implemented through the Act on Temporary Cost Subsidy for Businesses. The State Treasury could issue a financial commitment to exhibition, concert, sporting, etc, event organisers who planned on organising events for at least 200 persons between 1 June and 7 December 2021. If an event was cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions, the organiser could receive 85% compensation for the organising costs.²⁰⁷ The third subsidy was called ‘closing compensation’ (sulkemiskorvaus) and it was payable to businesses that had had to close their premises because of the law or decisions of public authorities between December 2021 and February 2022. The businesses included, among others, were bars, restaurants, gyms, swimming pools, and indoor playgrounds. The compensation (a maximum of EUR 2.3 million per business) was a computational compensation based on the business’ turnover during December 2019–February 2020.²⁰⁸ The fourth subsidy was called ‘subsidy for uncovered fixed costs’ (tuki kattamattomiin kiinteisiin kustannuksiin).²⁰⁹ This subsidy was based on the European Commission’s decision which allowed the exceeding of the maximum subsidy of EUR 2.3 million set in the EU State Aid Temporary Framework.²¹⁰

141.  Business Finland had a special call for funding that was open from 19 March to 8 June 2020. Employers could apply for funding to develop their business activities to better tackle the challenges brought by the pandemic. Funding was eventually granted to mainly (96%) small and medium-sized enterprises for 19,941 different projects.²¹¹ The regional ELY Centres granted funding for analyses of the Covid-19 pandemic situation and developing business activities through a call for applications that was open from 31 March to 8 June 2020.²¹² Funding for businesses was also channelled via Finnvera, which is a state-owned company providing guarantees, export credits guarantees, and loans. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, it exceptionally granted working capital loans directly to businesses and lowered the prices of guarantees.²¹³

142.  Some cities and municipalities also provided support for local businesses. For instance, the City of Helsinki exempted its business tenants from paying rent in April, May, and June 2020. The exemption only concerned certain types of business such as restaurants, bars, the culture sector, hairdressers, beauty salons, and sports facilities.²¹⁴

143.  Because of the decline in the economic operating conditions of businesses, the Parliament—based on an agreement between social partners—decided to weaken the legislation on worker protections. Firstly, the notice and obligatory cooperation procedure period before temporary layoffs was shortened from two weeks to five days. Secondly, the right to temporarily lay off workers was extended to workers with fixed-term contracts. Thirdly, an employment contract could be ended during the trial period on the basis of economic difficulties and not only on individual grounds. Fourthly, the period of an employer’s obligation to re-employ was extended from four to nine months. All amendments concerned the private sector employees and were valid between 1 April and 31 December 2020.²¹⁵

144.  No specific labour market interventions were directed to the self-employed. Furthermore, no special interventions were targeted at vulnerable employee groups.

145.  Based on Sections 95 and 97 of the Emergency Powers Act, the employment authorities have the right to order an employee to work in order to secure, among others, the necessary operation of the healthcare system. During the period of validity of the Emergency Powers Act (see Part II.A above), no such orders were given.

146.  As mentioned in Part IV.A.4 above, all Regional State Administrative Agencies decided on 17 March 2020 that all schools, polytechnics, universities, and other educational institutions were to be closed across the whole country. Teaching was organised online and using digital learning platforms. However, children in preschool education, from first to third grade, and those whose parents were in a critical line of work could continue to go to school.²¹⁶ Employees in a critical line of work were defined by the Government and they included healthcare workers, teachers, farmers, logistics industry workers, police, border guards, etc.²¹⁷

147.  No significant changes were made to the occupational health and safety laws because of the pandemic. In October 2020, the Government amended the Government Decree on the Protection of Employees from Dangers Caused by Biological Factors.²¹⁸ The amendments merely clarified the employers’ obligation to evaluate and register biological hazards in workplace. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health also issued a new Decree on the Classification of Biological Factors. Covid-19 is not referred to in either of the Decrees.²¹⁹

148.  According to Section 23 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employee has the right to refrain from work that causes serious danger to the worker’s own or co-workers’ life or health.²²⁰ No amendments were made to this provision because of the pandemic.

149.  As explained in Part V.A.2 above, temporarily laid off workers were given the right to study and engage in entrepreneurship without losing their right to unemployment benefits.²²¹

150.  As explained in Part V.B.2 above, the weakening of the conditions of temporary layoffs was agreed between the social partners.

151.  No new legislation was passed for remote work. On 2 December 2021, the Government issued a national recommendation on remote work (etätyö). According to the recommendation, remote work was to be favoured as much as possible in areas that were in the community transmission phase.²²² The recommendation ended on 28 February 2022.

152.  As explained in Part IV.A.1 above, entry into Finland was consecutively restricted in 2020 and 2021. The restrictions brought about complaints with the Chancellor of Justice claiming that the constitutional right to freedom of movement had been infringed. The Chancellor found that no infringement had taken place. As also explained in Part IV.A.1 above, the Government restricted domestic movement between the southernmost province of Uusimaa and the rest of Finland during spring 2020. The restriction brought about complaints with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Besides this, no mandatory curfews or stay-at-home measures were imposed in Finland during the pandemic.

153.  As explained in Part IV.A.4 above, businesses were restricted by temporarily closing premises and setting limits to opening hours and/or numbers of customers. These restrictions were claimed as infringements of the right to freedom of occupation. At least one appeal on this issue was lodged at the Supreme Administrative Court. The Court held, however, that the appeal was inadmissible because the governmental decrees could not be considered as appealable administrative decisions referred to in Sections 6 and 7 of the Administrative Procedural Act. Neither did the case have any exceptional features that would have warranted the right to appeal according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.²²³

154.  Both limitations on public gatherings and events (see Part IV.A.3 above) and special voting procedures in the municipal elections (see Part III.D above) were introduced during the pandemic. In 2021, an appeal made by two political parties (not mentioned) against a decision by the Regional State Administrative Agency was lodged at the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland in which it was claimed that the agency’s decision to ban all public gatherings violated the right to freedom of association as well as electoral rights. The ban was levied a few months before the municipal elections of 2021 that were originally to take place in April. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. The case went all the way to the Supreme Administrative Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision saying that no violation of constitutional rights had taken place.²²⁴

155.  Questions of the right to privacy and data protection emerged, firstly, in relation to the contact tracing mobile app (Koronavilkku). The bill on the introduction of the app did not raise any major problems in regard to right to privacy. The Constitutional Law Committee only required a few changes in the bill before it could be passed in the Parliament (see Part IV.A.9 above).

156.  Issues of the right to privacy and data protection emerged, secondly, in relation to the domestic use of the EU Covid-19 certificate. According to the bill on the domestic use, a valid certificate could also be used as a condition for entering restaurants, public gatherings, sports venues, swimming pools, indoor playgrounds, etc.²²⁵ The Constitutional Law Committee did not see problems relating to the right to privacy in the expanding of the use of the certificate into domestic use. The Committee was more concerned about questions of equality. It held, among others, that the age limit for the requirement to show the certificate must be raised from 12 to 16 in order to better guarantee equality between children of different ages. The Committee saw that not all children between 12 and 15 had the same readiness to independently download the certificate from the national health database called Omakanta.²²⁶ As a consequence, the Parliament set the age limit at 16 years.

157.  The impact of the pandemic on gender equality and violence in the household has been studied somewhat extensively in Finland. The Government funded an independent research project called ‘The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on gender equality in Finland’ which was carried out by a large number of researchers from The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Tampere University, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, and Statistics Finland. The project studied the impact from several angles—employment and income, working conditions, division of care, violence, and health and welfare.²²⁷ The research project covers the first two years of the pandemic (2020–2021). The information in this section is based on the report of this research project unless otherwise indicated.

158.  Regarding labour markets, the impact of the pandemic on total employment remained relatively minor. Nevertheless, there were differences between women and men. The employment rate of women decreased more than that of men. However, while the decrease of employment of women mainly affected part-time work and temporary contracts, the decrease in men’s employment also affected full time jobs and permanent contracts. With men, the decrease mainly concerned employees, whereas with women it also touched the self-employed. The employment rate of women recovered faster than that of men. With regard to working conditions, women more commonly experienced worsened working conditions compared to men. This can be explained by the fact that the pandemic more heavily affected professions that are female-dominated, ie, teachers, nurses, and restaurant workers.

159.  The pandemic did not affect the use of paternity leave. This was found somewhat surprising because international research data suggests that the use of paternity leave decreases in times of labour market insecurity. Instead, the use of home care allowance (kotihoidontuki) increased both with mothers and fathers compared to 2018–2019. In regard to the difficulties of combining work life with household work, in families with 5-year-old children, mothers had more negative experiences than fathers—mainly in the beginning of the pandemic when parents who were not working in a critical line of work (see Part V.B.3 above) were recommended to care for their children at home. The gender differences levelled out by the end of 2020, when the majority of 5-year-olds had returned to day care.²²⁸

160.  The evidence indicates that the pandemic did not really increase intimate partner violence against women in Finland. For instance, the number of reports to the police did not increase during the pandemic. There is an ongoing (2022–2023) research project (KOVÄ) on the impact of the pandemic on intimate partner violence in Finland which has already produced a number of publications.²²⁹

161.  Men suffered more from serious forms of Covid-19 than women. For instance, in 2020 and 2021, of those who received intensive care because of the disease, 64% were men.²³⁰

162.  In the beginning of the pandemic, it was reported in Finland that people with Asian backgrounds had experienced discrimination such as name-calling, social exclusion, and debasing looks.²³¹

163.  A survey conducted between October 2020 and February 2021 showed that, for instance, feelings of hope for the future, experience of one’s financial situation, and experience of one’s health (ie, self-rated health) were clearly lower among the immigrant population than the general population.²³² It was also reported in another survey that the experience of getting enough information about Covid-19 and measures against it was a little lower (94%) amongst immigrants compared to the population as a whole (98%).²³³

164.  Between 2020 and 2022, the State allocated a total of EUR 5 billion in extra state contributions and subsidies to municipalities that were responsible for also organizing disability services.²³⁴ There is no data on how much the municipalities further allocated funds to disability services.

165.  The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (Työterveyslaitos) issued guidelines for the protection of home care employees in April 2020 (updated in June 2021). The guidelines also applied to personal assistants and care personnel assisting people with disabilities. The guidelines also stated that municipalities must ensure that the required protective equipment is available to disabled persons who act as employers for their personal assistants.²³⁵

166.  In 2020 and 2021, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received some 130 Covid-19-related complaints concerning disabled persons. A significant proportion of the complaints had to do with restrictions to the rights of disabled persons living in residential care housing units, ie, the way in which visits of family members, home leaves, and daytime activities were restricted. However, the annual report of 2020 of the Ombudsman stated that the pandemic also entailed new practices and positive effects. For instance, some units had acquired tablet computers to enable communication with family members.²³⁶

167.  The problems encountered by disabled persons were also studied through surveys. It was reported that persons with disabilities experienced more loneliness and sleeping difficulties compared to the rest of the population. They also reported more often than others that their economic situation had worsened because of the pandemic, and that they had difficulties accessing welfare and health services.²³⁷

168.  In 2020 and 2021, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received a little over 200 Covid-19-related complaints that concerned the elderly. Complaints relating to measures in long-term care facilities or homes for the elderly have already been discussed in Part IV.A.10 above, as well as the complaints related to the vaccination of 65 to 69-year-olds (see Part IV.A.8 above). In addition to these two issues, other illegalities and shortcomings were also reported in the decisions of the Ombudsman, such as, for instance, lack of support for family carers, not enabling elderly couples to live together in the same units, and neglecting the dental care of the elderly. Some positive measures were, however, also reported. For instance, at the beginning of the pandemic an individual hospital district had contacted all family carers to inform them about the effect of the pandemic on the services.²³⁸

169.  Surveys on the effects of Covid-19 measures on the lives of the elderly and/or family carers were also carried out. According to a survey for people with dementia and their family members (n=199), almost all reported that the wellbeing of people with dementia had decreased because of the pandemic. This was due to the decline in communication with family members, restrictions of daytime activities, and problems or delays in accessing social and health services.²³⁹

170.  According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the pandemic seems to have affected children in foster care only to a lesser degree. The Ombudsman presumes that this has to do with the fact that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health published early on (1 April 2020) its Guidelines on the Effect of the Communicable Diseases Act and the Emergency Powers Act on the Freedom of Movement in Social Welfare Units.²⁴⁰ According to the guidelines, the pandemic could not be used as a ground for restricting an individual child’s right to meet their parents and family or the right to exercise their freedom of movement.²⁴¹ Notwithstanding the guidelines, some complaints did concern restrictions on visiting rights and freedom of movement, and they led to reprimands by the Ombudsman. Some complaints also concerned the use of masks in the units.²⁴²

171.  In May 2020, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health appointed a working group whose task was to survey the rights of the child and the wellbeing of children and families and to strengthen these in the post-crisis measures related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The results of the survey were to be utilized in the preparation of the National Child Strategy. The working group published its final report in January 2021. According to the report, the recommendation not to take children to day care issued by the Government in March 2020 entailed that the majority (circa 80%) of children below school age stayed home with their parent(s).²⁴³ Furthermore, because of the Government’s decision in March 2020, schools were closed between 18 March and 14 May 2020 (see Part IV.A.4 above). The recommendation to keep children below school age home and the closing of schools especially affected families that already were clients of child protection services. It was reported in other surveys that problems with interaction, coping, studies, and finances increased in these families. During spring 2020, the number of child protection notifications temporarily decreased. In the autumn, they started rising again, reaching the pre-pandemic levels.²⁴⁴

172.  During spring 2020, health checks at school reduced significantly. One-sixth of school nurses reported that over 60% of scheduled health checks were not realized. In autumn 2020, maternity and children’s health clinic visits as well as visits to school nurses were circa 25% lower than the year before. The municipal healthcare personnel responded by increasing appointments and using more time for individual clients. The pandemic also affected children’s dental care. It has been estimated that in 2020 the visits of school-aged children (and adults) to dentalcare units were reduced by almost half compared to the previous year. Regarding children of one to six years old, the number was some 40% lower than in 2019.²⁴⁵

173.  The pandemic greatly affected children’s sports hobbies and other recreational activities because sports facilities, public swimming pools, dance halls, amusement parks, indoor play centres, etc were closed in spring 2020 and 2021 (see Part IV.A.4 above). According to a survey, children’s everyday physical exercise dramatically decreased during the restrictions.²⁴⁶ The Ministry of Education and Culture granted some EUR 60 million of additional pandemic subsidies to culture and arts, art education, and sports clubs in spring 2020.²⁴⁷ In 2021, sports clubs were granted another EUR 3 million.²⁴⁸

174.  In March 2020, the Criminal Sanctions Agency (Rikosseuraamuslaitos) advised prison governors to use their statutory discretion on restricting visits to prisons and denying or postponing prison furloughs of prisoners.²⁴⁹ The governors acted accordingly, and restrictions were in effect until 1 July 2020. Restrictions were reintroduced in November when the number transmissions started to rise again.²⁵⁰ In order to strengthen the legitimacy of these measures, an Act on Temporary Measures in the Execution of Punishments and the Execution of Pretrial Detention due to the Covid-19 Epidemic was passed in the Parliament in July 2021.²⁵¹ The Act was valid until 31 October 2021.

175.  In March 2020, the Ministry of Justice issued a decree by which implementation of conversion imprisonments for non-payment of fines and unconditional imprisonments for less than six months were not to be carried out between 19 March and 19 June 2020.²⁵² The aim was to temporarily lower the number of prisoners in prisons in order to guarantee the basic functions and healthcare in the prisons. This decree was repealed by an Act on the same measures that was valid until 31 July.²⁵³ Later in 2020 and 2021, the Ministry of Justice issued several decrees on the same measures which were more or less consecutively valid until the end of 2021.²⁵⁴ Furthermore, in June 2021, the Ministry issued a new decree postponing this time the execution of all community sanctions and monitoring sentences between 7 June and 30 September 2021.²⁵⁵

176.  Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Parliamentary Ombudsman suspended all prison inspections in 2020. However, in April 2020, the Deputy Ombudsman decided by his own initiative to investigate how the pandemic had affected life in prisons. Information was requested from the Finnish Foundation for Supporting Ex-offenders (Kriminaalihuollon tukisäätiö), the Finnish Bar Association, and the Criminal Sanctions Agency. The investigation resulted in a decision in which the Deputy Ombudsman found that supervised visitations—especially between prisoners and their children—had been illegally suspended.²⁵⁶ Furthermore, the majority of the 66 individual complaints that the Ombudsman had received in 2020 concerned specifically the suspension of visits. In 2021, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received 95 complaints concerning Covid-19 measures in prisons. However, the investigation of almost all of these complaints was transferred to the Criminal Sanctions Agency because the Deputy Ombudsman had already investigated the legality of these measures in his decision from 28 July 2021.²⁵⁷

177.  In 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court published two decisions that had to do with Covid-19 measures in prisons. The first case concerned a prison doctor’s quarantine order on a prisoner. The administrative court had allowed an appeal by a prisoner claiming that the order had not been sufficiently based on the consideration of the prisoner’s individual circumstances. However, the Supreme Administrative Court repealed the administrative court’s decision stating that taking into consideration the urgency of the situation and the need for prompt measures, the doctor’s decision had been based on sufficient consideration of the individual prisoner’s circumstances as demanded in section 60 of the Communicable Diseases Act.²⁵⁸ The other decision concerned a case in which the appellant (prisoner) claimed that section 60 of the Communicable Diseases Act did not authorize quarantine orders in prisons because prisons were not explicitly referred to in the provision. The Supreme Administrative Court found the claim unwarranted and disallowed the appeal.²⁵⁹

178.  In December 2021, the Supreme Court gave a ruling in which it held that a Romanian citizen who had been extradited to Romania for the execution of their prison sentence could still be kept in custody even though the original term of the custody was expired. One of the reasons for the exceeding of the term was the fact that there were no direct flights from Finland to Romania because of Covid-19 restrictions. Other factors had also influenced the exceeding of the custodial term, such as the fact that the Romanian citizen had filed an application for asylum.²⁶⁰

179.  The Finnish Immigration Service (Migri) suspended all interviews of asylum seekers between 16 March and 14 April 2020. The interview processes were normalized only in summer 2020. The suspension had a negative impact on the already long processing times of asylum applications.²⁶¹

180.  The Parliamentary Ombudsman decided in 2020 by his own initiative to investigate how the epidemic had affected the rights of non-citizens held in detention centres. A non-citizen can be placed in a detention centre if they are, among others, to be deported or pose a threat to the public security. The conclusion of the investigation was that the detainees and their attorneys were properly informed about their right to bring a matter to the court to evaluate whether the grounds for detention still existed. The investigation also revealed that if a deportation of an individual had been suspended because of the epidemic, they had been released from the detention centre. The Ombudsman did not find any illegalities in the operation of the detention centres.²⁶²

181.  About 10,000 Sámi people—the only indigenous people in Europe—live in Finland. Some 40% live in the Sámi Homeland (saamelaisten kotiseutualue), which is an area in Northern Finland. The closing of the EU internal borders (see Part IV.A.2 above) negatively affected reindeer husbandry, which is one of the traditional livelihoods of the Sámi people. Due to the stricter border control, the border between Finland and Sweden could only be crossed from designated checkpoints. If one wished to cross the border elsewhere, prior authorisation was needed. As a response to some complaints made by the Sámi people, the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman found that no violation of the constitutional rights of the Sámi people had taken place. The Deputy Ombudsman held that the measures were proportional in respect to the necessity to protect the public health.²⁶³

182.  With some temporary amendments to the Communicable Diseases Act in July 2021, people entering Finland were required to present a certificate of either full vaccination, a negative test result, or recovery from Covid-19 (see Part IV.A.2 above). However, Sámi people practicing their traditional livelihood in the Sámi Homeland were exempted from this obligation.²⁶⁴

183.  According to section 9 of the Act on the Sámi Parliament, the authorities have an obligation to negotiate with the Sámi Parliament in all far-reaching and important measures which may directly and in a specific way affect the status of the Sámi as an indigenous people.²⁶⁵ The Chairperson of the Sámi Parliament criticized the Government for not abiding by this obligation before deciding on various Covid-19 measures.²⁶⁶

Toomas Kotkas, Professor of Public Law, University of Helsinki

Anu Kantola, Professor of Media and Communication Studies, University of Helsinki

Hanna Wass, Adjunct Professor in Political Science, University of Helsinki

Elisa Husu, Researcher, Media and Communication Studies, University of Helsinki