Jurists amazed at private parking control firms’ parking tickets

Experts feel that Supreme Court disregards Constitution when ruling that private parking control company can collect levied fines

print this

By Jaana Savolainen
     
      Experts in constitutional law are amazed at a decision made last week by the Supreme Court on the collection of control fees issued by private parking companies.
     
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday 16th March that the private parking control company ParkCom has the right to collect fines amounting to a total of EUR 360 that were issued to a motorist who had falsely parked his car on nine occasions in a Helsinki yard that was equipped with instructions on parking.
      According to the clearly-visible instruction board, parking was permitted only for holders of a valid parking permit. The yard was monitored by ParkCom.
      Two members of the court voted against the ruling.
      ”The Supreme Court has made its decision on the basis of contract law, being blind to the realities and without glancing at the direction of constitutional law”, says professor of constitutional law Tuomas Ojanen from the University of Helsinki.
      Kaarlo Tuori, Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Helsinki, says that he agrees with those who have questioned the decision.
      ”We are talking about issuing parking tickets, which is an activity that belongs to the public sector”, Tuori argues.
     
In December 2007 the Vantaa District Court dismissed ParkCom’s complaint against the errant motorist.
      On the basis of constitutional law, the Helsinki Court of Appeal also ruled in favour of the motorist.
      ”The activity in question is a punitive measure that entails exercise of power. Constitutional law requires that this kind of activity must be authorised by a statute”, Ojanen argues.
     
Ojanen notes further that the legitimacy of control fees should not be seen from the perspective of contract law.
      ”It is questionable whether both parties really have made a contract on parking”, Ojanen adds.
      In the Supreme Court’s view, parking one’s vehicle in a monitored yard automatically creates a contract between the motorist and the parking control company pursuant to the visibly posted parking instructions.
      The contract obligated the motorist to pay a control fee of EUR 40 in the event the posted instructions were breached.
      Kaarlo Tuori feels that in this case a silent agreement is ostensible and artificial.
     
The Ministry of Justice is currently preparing an act that would regulate the supervision of parking in private areas.
      ”When preparing the new act, the Constitutional Law Committee will have to decide whether supervising parking in private areas falls under contract law or whether it entails the public exercise of power. Moreover, the Committee will have to determine whether authorising a private company to issue fines is in compliance with the Constitution of Finland”, Kaarlo Tuori says.
      ”At this stage, I do not wish to take a stand on the issue myself”, Tuori adds.
     
     
The Supreme Court's ruling was noted in the earlier article from last week, linked below.
     
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 19.3.2010


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Private parking control company drops lawsuits (26.2.2010)
  Supreme Court: Private parking control company has right to issue parking tickets (17.3.2010)

See also:
  Private parking control firms may have to return levied fines (21.11.2008)
  Ministry of Justice considering wheel clamps and stiffer fines to prevent illegal parking (12.3.2010)

JAANA SAVOLAINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
jaana.savolainen@hs.fi