Finland's Justice Minister Leena Meri has scrapped a controversial plan to cut state reimbursements for the legal costs of acquitted defendants. The abrupt policy reversal follows intense criticism from coalition partners, legal experts, and citizens, who labeled the proposed savings as fundamentally unjust. This decision leaves Meri's ministry still searching for 24 million euros in required budget cuts, with personnel-heavy departments now potentially in the crosshairs.
Justice Minister Leena Meri (Finns Party) announced the decision on Monday, stating the proposed cut to compensation for the wrongfully accused was "unfair and did not fit with the sense of justice." The plan, which emerged from preparatory work at the official level, aimed to cap state-paid legal fee reimbursements at 120 euros per hour, a significant drop from the current average of 219 euros per hour. Negative feedback from a stakeholder meeting last Thursday and from the public cemented her choice to halt all further development of the draft law.
A Savings Target Meets Public Outcry
The Ministry of Justice, like all Finnish government ministries, is under a strict mandate to find substantial savings. The framework negotiations for the state budget have assigned it a target of 24 million euros. In exploring options, ministry officials identified the system for reimbursing legal costs as a potential area for savings. Under current Finnish law, the state is obligated to cover the reasonable legal costs of a defendant if the charges against them are dismissed. There is no statutory maximum for this compensation, leading to the high average hourly rate.
The now-defunct proposal sought to align these reimbursement rates with those paid for legal aid lawyers, effectively slashing the possible compensation by nearly half. Minister Meri emphasized that the ministry's task was to investigate whether growing legal aid fees offered savings potential to prevent them from escalating further. However, the public and political reaction made the cost untenable. "The savings target would be unfair," Meri concluded, signaling a clear prioritization of legal principle over budgetary pressure in this instance.
Coalition Cracks and Political Surprise
The proposal's demise was accelerated by opposition from within the government itself. The National Coalition Party (Kokoomus), a key coalition partner, came out against the draft law prepared by Meri's own ministry. Meri expressed surprise at this move, stating she was "a bit puzzled" because the process had been discussed with the special advisers of the government parties. She described the situation as having the rug pulled out from under her, despite what she believed was a cooperative understanding. "This was not some secret project," Meri stated, highlighting the internal tensions that can arise during difficult budget negotiations.
This intra-coalition disagreement underscores the delicate balance of Finland's right-wing government, where the populist Finns Party and the centrist National Coalition Party must reconcile differing priorities on justice and spending. The episode reveals how politically sensitive cuts to the justice system can be, even when framed as necessary fiscal discipline.
The Daunting Search for Alternative Cuts
With this option off the table, Minister Meri faces a significantly harder challenge. She has instructed officials to reconsider, in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, where the 24 million euro savings could alternatively be found within the justice portfolio. The ministry's budget structure makes this exceptionally difficult. Meri noted that approximately 80% of costs are personnel-related, covering critical institutions like the Prosecution Service, the Courts Administration, the Criminal Sanctions Agency, and the Legal Register Centre.
| Ministry of Justice Key Budget Areas | Primary Cost Driver |
|---|---|
| Courts Administration & Legal Register Centre | Personnel (Judges, clerks, admin) |
| Criminal Sanctions Agency (Prisons) | Personnel (Guards, rehab staff) |
| Prosecution Service | Personnel (Prosecutors, lawyers) |
| General Administration & Development | Personnel & Operations |
After previous tightening of the office network, Meri warned that further savings could directly threaten staff levels. She plans to solicit ideas for alternative savings targets from other government parties, effectively sharing the political burden of deciding where the axe will fall.
Expert Perspective: A Victory for Rule of Law
Legal scholars and rights advocates view the decision as a crucial defense of a fundamental legal principle. The right to full compensation for an acquitted defendant is seen as a cornerstone of a fair justice system. It ensures that an innocent person is not financially ruined by the state's decision to prosecute them. Reducing this compensation could create a two-tiered system where only those who can afford top legal representation receive it, while others might be pressured into unfavorable settlements to avoid bankruptcy from legal fees.
Professor of Procedural Law at the University of Helsinki, Laura Ervo, has previously argued that weakening cost compensation undermines the principle of equality before the law. "The threat of high costs can deter people from defending themselves properly, even when innocent," she noted in a recent seminar on access to justice. Economists also point to potential long-term inefficiencies, where short-term budget savings could lead to greater social costs through lost public trust and more wrongful convictions.
The EU Context and Domestic Pressure
Finland's commitment to a high-functioning justice system is also framed by its EU membership. The European Union emphasizes the importance of effective judicial systems and access to justice as pillars of the rule of law, factors regularly monitored in annual rule of law reports. While the proposed cuts were a domestic matter, any significant erosion of legal safeguards could attract scrutiny in this broader European context.
Domestically, the decision shifts the political problem rather than solving it. The 24-million-euro savings target remains, and the Ministry of Justice must now present alternative cuts that will likely be equally painful. The focus may turn to operational efficiencies, digitalization projects, or politically risky reductions in services. The coming weeks will see intense negotiation within the government as the framework budget talks conclude.
Minister Meri's reversal demonstrates a clear limit to austerity when it clashes with core judicial values. However, the question now hanging over the Helsinki government district is not if cuts will come, but who—or what part of the Finnish justice system—will ultimately pay the price. The hunt for 24 million euros continues, with the nation's judges, prosecutors, and prison staff anxiously awaiting the next proposal.