Chancellor of Justice declines to act on complaints over Minister Rydman’s research funding decisions
The Chancellor of Justice has decided not to take action regarding complaints filed against Minister of Social Affairs and Health Wille Rydman (Finns Party) over his handling of subsidies for social work research. The decision, announced by Chancellor of Justice Janne Salminen, follows multiple complaints alleging irregularities in the funding process.
The complaints centre on nine rejected applications for research grants, which had been recommended for funding during the civil service preparation phase in June. The total funding pool allocated for the projects was four million euros, but Rydman left half of the budget unspent, approving only nine of the proposed projects. Ilta-Sanomat reports that the minister justified his decisions by citing concerns over the justification of certain research projects amid strained public finances.
Critics, including members of the scientific community, have raised concerns over potential violations of the principle of equal treatment and the adequacy of the ministry’s investigations. Some complaints allege that Rydman may have exceeded his discretionary authority or acted in breach of good governance standards. Yle notes that all nine rejected funding decisions are now subject to rectification requests, which remain pending at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
In his response, Salminen explained that the Chancellor of Justice does not typically intervene in matters still under review by another authority. Since the rectification requests are unresolved—and further appeals to the Administrative Court remain possible—he concluded that no action was warranted “at least at this stage.” Ilta-Sanomat adds that applicants could have also sought rectification directly from the ministry, a process already underway.
Rydman has previously defended his decisions, stating that he rejected applications where he was not convinced of their merit given the current fiscal constraints. The controversy has drawn sharp criticism from researchers, who argue that the rejections undermine scientific independence and transparency in funding allocation.