Date when decision was rendered: 20.1.2020

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 132; 2952/1/18

Reference to source

KHO 2020:4.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX database 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-oi9keuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, access to documents, national security, effective remedy,
utlänning, asyl, allmänna handlingars offentlighet, nationell säkerhet, effektiva rättsmedel,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, asiakirjojen julkisuus, kansallinen turvallisuus, tehokas oikeussuojakeino,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1-1, 3, 9-1, 10, 11, 22 and 24 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; section 12-2 of the Constitution Act; Articles 1, 10-3, 12-1 and 23 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

= lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 1 § 1 mom., 3 §, 9 § 1 mom., 10 §, 11 §, 22 § och 24 §; grundlagen 12 § 2 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2013/32/EU om gemensamma förfatanden för att bevilja och återkalla internationellt skydd artikel 1, artikel 10 3 punkten, artikel 12 1 punkten och artikel 23

= laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 1 § 1 mom., 3 §, 9 § 1 mom., 10 §, 11 §, 22 § ja 24 §; perustuslaki 12 § 2 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2013/32/EU kansainvälisen suojelun myöntämistä ja poistamista koskevista yhteisistä menettelyistä 1 artikla, 10 artikla 3 kohta, 12 artikla 1 kohta ja 23 artikla.

ECHR-13

Abstract

The Immigration Service had rejected A's asylum application.The decision was based on a statement submitted by the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (Supo).For the purpose of an appeal against the negative asylum decision, A's counsel requested from Supo access to the statement as well as the reasoning and materials upon which the statement was based.Supo submitted the statement but denied access to the rest of the documents on grounds of national security.Following A's appeal, the administrative court upheld Supo's decision.In the Supreme Administrative Court, A claimed a violation of the right to an effective remedy in the pending asylum appeal process, due to not having access to all Supo's documents upon which the negative decision by the Immigration Service was based.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to its previous rulings (KHO 2007:47-49; KHO 2018:109) and noted that it is apparent from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that confidential material which is not disclosed to a party on national security grounds is not as such in violation of the ECHR.However, in such a case a competent court must have the opportunity to review the material in order to assess whether it can be deemed confidential and whether there are sufficient grounds to the conclusions drawn on the basis of the material which the party has not had access to.A court shall consider whether there is a just balance between individual rights on the one hand and public order and national security on the other.

Based on the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, A, as an appellant in the asylum process, shall have the right of access to the contents also of a document which is not in the public domain, if the document may influence or may have influenced the consideration of the appellant's matter.However, this right is not without limitations.According to the Act, a party, his or her representative or counsel shall not have the right of access to a document, access to which would be contrary to a very important public interest.The Supreme Administrative Court reviewed the relevant documents and confirmed that the reasoning and materials upon which Supo's statement was based were confidential as provided for in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, and it was not obvious that access to these documents would not compromise state security.

A also referred to the Common Procedures Directive which states that applicants and their legal adviser shall have access to information provided by experts, where the determining authority has taken that informaion into consideration when taking a decision on the application.The Supreme Administrative Court held that Supo's documents in this case could not be regarded as expert advice in the meaning of the Common Procedures Directive.Also, the Directive does not specity that an asylum applicant's access to information could not be limited on grounds of substantial public interest even in cases where access to a document has been requested by the applicant's öegaö adviser on the applicant's behalf.

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that A did not have right of access to the contents of the reasoning and background materials of Supo's statement.The request for access to these documents could thus be denied.

2.11.2023 / 2.11.2023 / RHANSKI