![[Sökformulär]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/sok.gif){kind=icon}
![[Info om databasen]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/info2.gif){kind=icon}
![[Söktips]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/soktips.gif){kind=icon}
| [1 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 7.9.1993 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 3234; 2248/7/93 Reference to source Electronic database FKHO within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen FKHO inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FKHO-tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
deportation,
respect for family life,
criminal charge,
marriage,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 1, 40-1-3, 40-1-4 and 43-1 of the Aliens' Act = utlänningslag 1 §, 40 § 1 mom. 3 och 4 punkten, 43 § 1 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 1 §, 40 § 1 mom. 3 ja 4 kohta, 43 § 1 mom. ECHR-8 Abstract The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the expulsion order of a person who had committed serious crimes and had thereafter married a Finn.A foreigner A had been sentenced to imprisonment because of continued rape and attempted rape.Taking into account the nature of the crimes, A could be considered to have shown through his own behaviour that he was a threat to the security of others.The fact that A had married a Finn after the expulsion decision by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs did not preclude his expulsion. 27.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 6.6.1997 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 1465; 749/3/97 Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
aliens,
deported persons,
respect for family life,
marriage,
Relevant legal provisions Section 1 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 1 § = ulkomaalaislaki 1 §. ECHR-8 Abstract A, who was an alien, had married a Finnish citizen, B, in Finland on 27 September 1996.A had originally come to Finland on 7 September 1996 on the invitation of a Finnish citizen C in order to marry C.However, A had not married C, but B whom he had met on 13 September 1996.A was not granted a residence permit and the Directorate of Immigration ordered him to be deported.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.Considering the circumstances under which the marriage was contracted and taking into account that Article 8 of the ECHR does not secure to a married person a general right to obtain a residence permit in the home country of his or her spouse, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the deportation of A did not violate A's right to respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the ECHR.A's appeal was dismissed. 2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 15.6.1995 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 2319; S 95/301 Reference to source KKO 1995:110. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 I January-June Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1995 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1995 Pages: pp. 466-469 Subject
rights of the child,
marriage,
child welfare,
children,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 30 and 32 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act = lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 30 § och 32 § = laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 30 § ja 32 §. 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Abstract A stated in the court of appeal that his wife B had without his agreement in 1993 brought their two common children (born 1987 and 1989) from the family's home in Switzerland to Finland.A claimed that B had thereby violated his right as a father to care for the children.He demanded that the court of appeal, on the basis of sections 30 and 32 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act, order that B had to return the children to A in Switzerland immediately.The court of appeal found that A and B had temporarily agreed that the children would live with B in Finland.As it had not been shown that B would have been forced into making the agreement, A must be regarded as having accepted, in accordance with sections 30 and 32 of the Act of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act, that the children would not be returned to him.The court of appeal the refore rejected the claims. A appealed to the Supreme Court, repeating his claims.He stated that his wife B had alcohol problems and had received hospital treatment for depression at several occasions.In November 1993, she had, without agreeing with him on the matter, taken the children with her to Finland where she intended to seek treatment for her alcohol problems.After the treatment, B stayed on in Finland with the children, and informed A that she would not return the children to A.According to his statement, A had made the temporary agreement only in order to be allowed to visit the children in Finland. The Child Custody and Rights of Access Act incorporates the provisions of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.Section 30 of the Act requires that a child illegally abducted to Finland from his or her residence in another Contracting State must be returned to that state.Illegal abductions are defined in section 32 as the taking away or non-return of children in violation of the right of the guardian to take care of the child according to the law in the country where the child had its residence immediately before the abduction, provided that the guardian was in fact using this right at the time of the abduction.Switzerland is a party to the Hague Convention.According to the Act, it applies to children abducted to Finland even if the child was brought to the country before the entry into force of the Act, which was the case here. The Supreme Court concluded that A had and used the right to care for the children when they were taken away by B.The temporary agreement, which invested the care of the children with their mother until further agreement, was made under the supervision of the social authorities and with the assistance of lawyers.It had not been shown that A would have been forced to sign the agreement.The fact that he would probably not have been able to see his children during his visit in Finland had he not signed the agreement did not affect the binding nature of the agreement.Neither did the fact that A claimed that he was unaware of his rights under the Child Custody and Rights of Access Act when signing the agreement affect the outcome of the case.A had not shown any other grounds rendering the agreement void.A was therefore to be regarded as having accepted, in accordance with section 32-2 of the Act, by means of the aforementioned agreement that the children would not be returned.The taking away of the children was thereby not illegal.The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal. 8.4.1998 / 31.5.2006 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 9.12.2002 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 3220; 433/3/02 Reference to source KHO 2002:84. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2002 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2002 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2002 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2005 Pages: pp. 504-511 Subject
respect for private life,
respect for family life,
aliens,
marriage,
refugee status,
Relevant legal provisions sections 18b and 18c of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 18b § och 18c § = ulkomaalaislaki 18b § ja 18c §. ECHR-8 Abstract A had arrived from Iran to a UNHCR refugee camp in Turkey in 1995 and had been issued a residence permit in Finland on the basis of refugee status in 1997.A applied for a residence permit on behalf of his Iranian wife B on the basis of family ties.According to section 18c of the Aliens Act, a family member of an alien residing in Finland with a residence permit issued on the basis of refugee status shall be issued a residence permit unless there are reasons relating to public order or safety or other weighty reasons against issuing the permit.The Directorate of Immigration considered that it had not been shown that there had been any genuine family life between A and B and rejected A's application.The administrative court dismissed A's appeal.The Supreme Administrative Court granted A leave to appeal. A and B had known each other since childhood.Before A left for Turkey in 1995, he had asked B to join him, but that was not possible at the time.While being in Finland, A had kept in touch with B.They were married in Iran in 2000 according to Iranian legislation.Being a refugee, A could not be present at the wedding.After the wedding, A and B had spent a few weeks together in Turkey in 2001. The Supreme Administrative Court referred to section 18c of the Aliens Act and Article 8 of the ECHR and noted that the purpose of these provisions is to protect genuine and close family life.When issuing a residence permit, the basis for the decision is an assumption of genuine family life.According to the Supreme Administrative Court, when assessing the meaning of family life in this case, the requirements set by religion and culture in Iran had to be taken into account.Consequently, it could not be required that A and B should have lived together before their marriage.After the marriage, A's status as a refugee gave him limited possibilities to see his wife.In this case, leading a genuine family life required thus that the wife should have a possibility to move to live with her husband.The Court concluded that considering the circumstances in the matter in their entirety, the fact that A and B had up to now not led a family life did not mean that there would not have been a bond between the spouses which requires the protection of their family life when applying for a residence permit on the basis of a family tie in order to lead family life in Finland.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Directorate of Immigration and returned the case to the latter for a new consideration. 9.5.2003 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 18.1.2005 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 56; 2975/3/03 Reference to source KHO 2005:2. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2005 January-June Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2005 januari-juni Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2005 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2008 Pages: pp. 19-26 Subject
aliens,
respect for private life,
residence permit,
marriage,
right to marry,
Relevant legal provisions sections 1 and 21 of the Aliens Act; section 10 of the Constitution Act = utlänningslag 1 § och 21 §; grundlagen 10 § = ulkomaalaislaki 1 § ja 21 §; perustuslaki 10 §. ECHR-12; CCPR-23 Abstract By its decision of 1 February 2002 the Directorate of Immigration had issued A a residence permit for one year on the basis of a family tie.In 1999, when the application for a residence permit was made, A had been unmarried and under 18 years of age.According to the Aliens Act, A could thus be regarded as a family member of his father who resided in Finland and had come to the country as a quota refugee in 1998.While the application was pending A came of age.When he arrived in Finland in March 2002, he told the authorities that he had married on 20 February 2002 and that his wife was seven months pregnant.He had met his wife in his previous country of residence in 2000.With reference to section 21 of the Aliens Act, the Directorate of Immigration revoked A's residence permit in July 2002 on the grounds that A, in applying for a residence permit, had given false information and had concealed matters which would have had a bearing on the residence permit decision (i.e., his intention to get married).A appealed against the decision to the administrative court which rejected the appeal.A appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court which quashed the decisions of the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court.The Court pointed out that the fact that A had come of age while his application was pending had been known to the Directorate of Immigration and could therefore not constitute a reason for revoking the residence permit.The Court referred to the right to marry as provided for in Article 12 of the ECHR and Article 23 of the CCPR, the right to privacy as prescribed in section 10 of the Constitution Act, and section 1-4 of the Aliens Act according to which aliens' rights shall not be curtailed more than is necessary.In the Court's view, it could not be held as a condition for a residence permit that a person who has come of age refrains from getting married for an indefinite time when that person has been issued a residence permit on the basis of a family tie.Under such circumstances a marriage could not be regarded as a considerable change affecting the grounds for entry or for issuing a residence permit.A's marriage could therefore not constitute a strong cause to revoke his fixed-term residence permit as prescribed in section 21 of the Aliens Act. 26.5.2006 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 5.12.2005 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 3219; 2306/3/05 Reference to source KHO 2005:87. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2005 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2005 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2005 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2009 Pages: pp. 681-691 Subject
aliens,
marriage,
best interests of the child,
residence permit,
children,
Relevant legal provisions sections 6-1, 36-2, 37-1 and 114-1 of the Aliens Act; sections 4, 115-1, 117-2 and 139-2 of the Marriage Act = utlänningslag 6 § 1 mom., 36 § 2 mom. 37 § 1 mom. och 114 § 1 mom; äktenskapslag 4 §, 115 § 1 mom., 117 § 2 mom. och 139 § 2 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 6 § 1 mom., 36 § 2 mom., 37 § 1 mom. ja 114 § 1 mom.; avioliittolaki 4 §, 115 § 1 mom., 117 § 2 mom. ja 139 § 2 mom. ECHR-8; ECHR-12; CCPR-23-2; CEDAW-16-1-b; CEDAW-16-2 Abstract A had applied for a residence permit in Finland on the basis of a family tie.A had married his cousin B who resided in Finland.B and her family had come to the country as refugees in 1996.The marriage took place in Syria in 2004.At that time, B was 15 years old and, as a minor, she could not have married under Finnish law without a special permission from the Ministry of Justice.The Directorate of Immigration rejected A's application, mainly on the grounds that granting him a residence permit was not in the best interests of the child, B.On A's appeal, the administrative court revoked the Directorate's decision.It held that, considering the cultural and religious background of the persons concerned, issuing A with a residence permit could not be regarded as being in contradiction with the best interests of the child (B).Also, the fact that A and B had so far not lived together as a family did not mean that there was no bond between the spouses requiring the protection of genuine family life. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Directorate of Immigration and ruled that issuing a residence permit to A was in this case not in the best interests of B.Acknowledging that the marriage was valid under Syrian law and was therefore in principle also valid in Finland, the Court found that the mere validity of a marriage did not have an impact on the assessment of the matter concerning A's residence permit.In the Court's view, the fact that in some countries a person, who is still a minor according to Finnish law, may enter into marriage, cannot mean that, as a consequence, that person should be issued with a residence permit in Finland on the same grounds as a person who is of age when marrying.The Court also referred to the possibility that an applicant tries to evade the provisions on entry into a country by applying for a residence permit on the basis of a marriage to a person who is clearly a child.At the time the marriage between A and B was contracted, B was a minor and dependent on her parents in such a way that she cannot be considered to have given her full and free consent to the marriage.With reference to international human rights law, the Court ruled that immigrant girls also have the right to choose a spouse with their free and full consent, regardless of their culture and religion.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the administrative court and upheld the decision of the Directorate of Immigration. 26.5.2006 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 6.7.2005 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report no. 1665; H2005/96 Reference to source KKO 2005:84. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2005 II July-December Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2005 II juli-december Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2005 II heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2006 Pages: pp. 606-609 Subject
right to marry,
aliens,
principle of legality,
nulla poena sine lege,
marriage,
immigration,
Relevant legal provisions Chapter 16, section 7-1 of the Penal Code; Chapter 31, section 8-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure = strafflagen 16 kapitel 7 § 1 mom.; rättegångsbalken 31 kapitel 8 § 4 mom. = rikoslaki 16 luku 7 § 1 mom.; oikeudenkäymiskaari 31 luku 8 § 4 mom. Abstract Four Finns had each married Russian spouses.All four marriages ended after the Russian spouses had been granted residence permits in Finland.The Finns conceded that they had been paid or offered a reward for the marriage.Marriages of convenience contracted in order to circumvent immigration rules are not criminalized in Finnish law.However, the genuineness of a marriage may be assessed in the context of an application for a residence permit on the basis of a family tie.If the marriage has been contracted only in order to circumvent the rules on entry, the application for a residence permit is rejected. In this case, the four Finns as well as one of the Russian spouses were charged with a registration offence under the Penal Code.Summoning the three other Russian spouses for trial failed.The court of first instance held that when saying "I do" as a part of the marriage ceremony, the defendants had provided false information and had thus caused a legally relevant error in the population register where marriages are registered.The defendants were sentenced to suspended imprisonment. At the initiative of the Deputy Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court took up the case as a reversal of a final judgment.The Supreme Court held that in regard to the legitimacy of a marriage, the motives for the marriage are irrelevant.Though the motives for a marriage may in some issues have legal relevance, they are not entered in the population register.Therefore, the faultiness of a register entry regarding marriage cannot be determined on the basis of the motives of the marriage.Consequently, a register entry about marriage cannot be deemed false on the grounds that the marriage is contracted in order to obtain a residence permit.The Supreme Court ruled that in this case the defendants' deeds did not constitute a registration offence under the Penal Code.It reversed the decision of the first instance court to the benefit of the defendants as being based on a manifest misapplication of the law. 29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 3.2.2009 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallito-oikeus Reference: Report no. 219; 1433/1/08 Reference to source KHO 2009:15. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2009 January-June Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2009 januani-juni Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2009 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2010 Pages: pp. 127-152 Subject
respect for private life,
respect for family life,
right to marry,
marriage,
transsexuals,
non-discrimination,
Relevant legal provisions sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Act on confirming the sexual identity of transsexual persons; sections 1 and 6 of the Marriage Act; sections 1 and 8 of the Act on Registered Partnerships; sections 4-1-2 and 6-1 of the Act on Population Data; section 3 of the Degree on Population Data; sections 6, 10-1, 22 and 106 of the Constitution Act = lag om fastställande av transseksuella personers könstillhörighet 1 §, 2 § och 5 §; äktenskapslag 1 § och 6 §; lag om registrerad partnerskap 1 § och 8 §; befolkningsdatalag 4 § 1 mom. 2 punkten och 6 § 1 mom.; befolkningsdataförordning 3 §; grundlag 6 §, 10 § 1 mom., 22 § och 106 § = laki transseksuaalin sukupuolen vahvistamisesta 1 §, 2 § ja 5 §; avioliittolaki 1 § ja 6 §; laki rekisteröidystä parisuhteesta 1 § ja 8 §; väestötietolaki 4 § 1 mom. 2 kohta ja 6 § 1 mom.; väestotietoasetus 3 §; perustuslaki 6 §, 10 § 1 mom., 22 § ja 106 §. ECHR-8; ECHR-12; ECHR-14; Articles 7 and 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Abstract X, who was a male to female transsexual, requested that the local population register office makes a decision by which it recognizes X's sexual identity as female.X had been married to a woman for over ten years and the couple had a child.Because of their religious convictions, the couple wanted to remain married.According to the Act on confirming the sexual identity of transsexual persons, the post-operative gender of a transsexual person who is married can be recognized and entered in the population register, if the spouse gives his or her consent.Once the registration has been made, the marriage is converted into a registered partnership between a same-sex couple without any additional procedure.Because X's spouse had not given her consent, the local population register office rejected X's request.X appealed to the administrative court which agreed with the local register office.In her appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, X claimed that in making the registration of post-operative gender conditional to the consent of the spouse and in forcing a couple to convert their marriage into a registered partnership, the Act on confirming the sexual identity of transsexual persons was discriminatory and violated the respect for private and family life.X also argued that the relevant provisions of the Act should not be applied because they were in evident conflict with constitutional rights and the Constitution Act. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed at length the development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning transsexuals and the question as to what extent it falls within the appreciation of the state to regulate the right to marry for transsexuals.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the Finnish legislation permits registered partnership between same-sex couples but not same-sex marriage.It then pointed out that the question of amending the institution of marriage by defining it in gender-neutral terms contains conflicting issues pertaining to ethical and religious values, and this kind of a question must be resolved by an Act of Parliament.In the Act on confirming the sexual identity of transsexual persons, the legislator has wanted to retain the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman, making it however possible to register a married transsexual person's post-operative gender on the consent of the spouse.The marriage then continues as a registered partnership which in legal terms is nearly equal to marriage.The Supreme Administrative Court considered that, in assessing the fair balance between transsexual persons' right to private life on the one hand and the prevailing concepts and values related to family law on the other, the current solution, in the form of the provisions of the Act on confirming the sexual identity of transsexual persons, did not exceed the margin of appreciation allowed to States Parties to the ECHR.The Court also found that the application of the provisions in this case was not in evident conflict with the Constitution Act.It concluded that, on the whole, X had been ensured her right to private and family life as prescribed in the Constitution Act and the ECHR, taking also into account Articles 12 and 14 of the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. See also the case of H. v.Finland (Application No. 37359/09), judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 13 November 2012. 18.11.2009 / 15.11.2012 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [9 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 11.2.2015 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Hösta forvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 333; 2713/3/14 Reference to source KHO 2015:21. Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
aliens,
right to marry,
marriage,
oral hearing,
Relevant legal provisions section 10, 12-2 and 111 of the Marriage Act; section 2 of the Marriage Degree; section 38 of the Administrative Procedure Act = äktenskapslag 10 §, 12 § 2 mom. och 111 §; äktenskapsförordning 2 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 38 § = avioliittolaki 10 §, 12 § 2 mom. ja 111 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 38 §. ECHR-12 Abstract Somali citizens A and B intended to marry and had submitted to the local register office a request for the investigation of impediments to marriage.A had told he was a widow, whereas B was divorced.They had not presented any documentary evidence of their respective marital status.However, they had four witness statements to support their application.The register office did not regard the evidence as reliable and rejected the request.The applicants appealed to the administrative court and requested an oral hearing.The administrative court rejected the appeal and the request for an oral hearing.It held that an oral hearing would not bring forth any additional evidence which would be necessary for the determination of the appeal.A and B appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court cited Article 12 of the ECHR which provides that men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.The court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (O'Donoghue et al. v.The United Kingdom, judgment of 14 December 2010) and noted that the reference to national laws in Article 12 gives the state a fairly wide margin of appreciation when regulating, for example, marriage procedures or the impediments to marriage.However, such limitations must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired.In the present case, the applicants' marital status could not be verified from the Finnish population register.They were also not able to present documentation from the officials of their native country for the examination of impediments to marriage.The written statements they had presented were not regarded as reliable.Consequently, their possibility to get married was essentially dependent on the fact whether an oral hearing is conducted when examining the impediments to marriage.In this case the main issue was concerning the reliability of presented evidence.Under the circumstances, the administrative court should not have rejected the applicants' request for an oral hearing.The Supreme Administrative Court referred the matter back to the administrative court for an oral hearing and a new consideration. 10.2.2016 / 10.2.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [10 / 10] |
Date when decision was rendered: 10.11.2011 Judicial body: Kuopio Administrative Court = Kuopio förvaltningsdomstol = Kuopion hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 11/0784/1; 00178/11/3101 Reference to source Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
aliens,
residence permit,
marriage,
Relevant legal provisions sections 6, 37-1 and 114 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 6 §, 37 § 1 mom. och 114 § = ulkomaalaislaki 6 §, 37 § 1 mom. ja 114 §. CEDAW-16-1-b; Article 1-1 of the Convention on consent to marriage, minimum age for marriage and registration of marriages Abstract X had been issued with a residence permit in Finland on the basis of subsidiary protection.She applied for a residence permit on the basis of family ties to her mother, sisters, her sister's children and her cousin.The Immigration Service rejected the application on the grounds that the conditions for granting a residence permit were not met.According to the Aliens Act, as a rule, only the spouse and unmarried children under 18 years of age are considered family members.Also, if the recipient of international protection residing in Finland is a minor (that is, under 18 years of age), his or her guardian is considered a family member.The Immigration Service held that X's mother had ceased to be her guardian after X had married.X appealed against the decision to the administrative court. In the asylum interview X had told that her uncle had forced her to marry Y who had threatened X's family with violence.At the time X had been 15 years old and she had objected to the marriage.After the marriage ceremony X and Y had lived together for four months.During that time X had constantly been subjected to physical violence, including rape.X then escaped, with her mother's help.The administrative court noted that the Immigration Service had rejected the application for a residence permit mainly on the grounds that the family tie between X and her mother had been broken because of X's marriage.Considering the circumstances leading to X's marriage, the court held that the marriage could not form the main basis for the rejection of the application.The matter was referred back to the Immigration Service for a new consideration. 29.6.2016 / 29.6.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|