![[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 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 2.11.2000 Judicial body: Oulu Administrative Court = Uleåborgs förvaltningsdomstol = Oulun hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 431/I; 149/5300/00 Reference to source Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Ministry of Justice Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankkin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
fair trial,
effective remedy,
public access to documents,
Relevant legal provisions sections 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 24 and 26 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities = lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 1 §, 5 §, 10 §, 11 §, 12 §, 24 §, 26 § = laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 1 §, 5 §, 10 §, 11 §, 12 §, 24 §, 26 §. ECHR-6; ECHR-13 Abstract A had requested from the Oulu Court of First Instance for a photocopy of a deed of inventory concerning the estate of the deceased father of A's ex-wife B.A needed the document in a case which was pending before another court and which concerned the adjustment of B's debts.A was a party to this case as a joint debtor and guarantor of B's debts.The Oulu Court of First Instance had rejected the request on account of the fact that the deed of inventory contained information concerning the property of the deceased and his widow and such documents according to the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (section 24) are to be kept secret.Only a party has access to such documents (section 11).The court noted that A was not a party to the matter concerning the deed of inventory and the case concerning the adjustment of B's debts was pending before another court. A appealed to the Oulu Administrative Court.He claimed that information concerning B's inheritance could not be classified as secret in a manner that such information could not have been given for an acceptable and clearly specified purpose and to a party in the case concerning B's debts.He found it unreasonable that, as it seemed to him, he would have had access to the document had the case concerning B been pending before the Oulu Court of First Instance.He also referred to Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and claimed that under the circumstances it was not possible for him to defend his legal rights. The administrative court rejected the appeal with reference to the same grounds as the court of first instance.It added that section 12 of the Act, dealing with the right of a person to access to documents which concerned the person himself or herself, was not applicable in A's case.Nor was section 26 which provided for access to secret documents on the basis of the consent of the person whom the documents concerned.The court further noted that as a party to the case concerning the adjustment of B's debts, A had a right to receive information about a secret document which may affect his case from the court dealing with the case.Therefore, the decision of the Oulu Court of First Instance not to submit the requested document was not contrary to Articles 6 or 13 of the ECHR. 28.10.2002 / 25.1.2011 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 31.5.2001 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 1148; R 2000/781 Reference to source KKO 2001:53. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2001 I January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2001 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2001 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 2001 Pages: pp. 270-274 Subject
fair trial,
public access to documents,
Relevant legal provisions section 21 of the Constitution Act; sections 4, 11, 14 and 33 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; Chapter 2, section 8, and Chapter 30, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure = grundlagen 21 §; lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 4 §, 11 §, 14 §, 33 §; rättegångsbalken 2 kapitel 8 §, 30 kapitel 2 § = perustuslaki 21 §; laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 4 §, 11 §, 14 §, 33 §; oikeudenkäymiskaari 2 luku 8 §, 30 luku 2 §. ECHR-6 Abstract A week after the court of appeal had made a decision in a criminal case in which A was a party, A asked to receive a photocopy of a presentation memorandum relating to the decision.The court of appeal rejected A's request.It referred to section 11-3 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities according to which access by a party to a criminal case to documents containing information on deliberations of the court was subject to the permission of the court.The decision was made by the president of the court of appeal.It also included appeal instructions according to which appeal could be made to the Supreme Court without a leave to appeal.A appealed to the Supreme Court and claimed that when denying his request the court had violated his rights under Article 6-1 of the ECHR. In its decision, the Supreme Court concentrated on two questions: the competence of the president of the court of appeal and the appeal instructions.The Court noted that the Act on the Openness of Government Activities applies also to courts of law (section 4).However, the Act does not say anything about the composition of the court or the procedure applied by the court when making a decision on a request for access to a trial document (section 14).The Court then noted section 33-2 of the Act which states that if a party to the case requests access to a document related to a pending trial, the pertinent court order shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the procedure for appeals in the main issue.In view of this, it is, in the Supreme Court's opinion, logical that also before the appeal, when deciding on a request for access to a document, the court applies the same procedure as in the main issue.To support this conclusion, the Court noted that, in addition to the general provisions on access to official documents, the Act contains specific provisions on parties' right of access to official documents (section 11) as well as on the right of access to trial documents by a party to a civil or criminal case (section 11-3) with restrictions only on specific grounds mentioned in the Act.A party's right of access to trial documents is part of the requirements of a fair trial as prescribed in Article 6 of the ECHR and section 21 of the Constitution Act.As judicial authorities, courts are responsible for the application of these requirements.Therefore, when deciding on a request for access to a document, courts should apply the procedure for matters relating to the application of the law.The Supreme Court concluded that in this case the decision on the request for access to a document should have been made by the court of appeal in the composition of three members, as in the main issue.Furthermore, the appeal against the decision was subject to leave to appeal, as was the decision in the main issue.The decision of the court of appeal was quashed, and the case was returned to the lower court. One concurring judge noted that the provisions concerning appeal did not change the character of the matter, which was administrative.Therefore, the president of the court of appeal could not alone decide on A's request.Two concurring judges were of the opinion that in the matter concerning access to trial documents, A had a separate need for a legal remedy, not linked with the main issue.In this matter, the court of appeal was the first instance court.Therefore, as provided in Chapter 30, section 2-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, appeal against the decision was not subject to leave to appeal. 29.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 19.6.2001 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 1289; H 2001/71 Reference to source KKO 2001:64. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2001 I January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2001 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2001 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 2001 Pages: pp. 361-363 Subject
fair trial,
public access to documents,
Relevant legal provisions section 21 of the Constitution Act; sections 11 and 14 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; Chapter 1, section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure = grundlagen 21 §; lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 11 §, 14 §; rättegångsbalken 1 kapitel 7 § = perustuslaki 21 §; laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 11 §, 14 §; oikeudenkäymiskaari 1 luku 7 §. ECHR-6 Abstract A, who had been a party to a case before the Supreme Court, had requested a photocopy of a presentation memorandum in so far as it contained information which according to Chapter 1, section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure was secret.According to section 11-3 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, access to such information could be granted to a party to a civil or criminal trial subject to the permission of the authority in possession of the document.The Supreme Court denied A's request. In its decision, the Supreme Court discussed the procedure applicable when deciding on a request for access to a trial document.The Court noted that, as compared to the general regulation of access to official documents, parties' right of access was regulated separately in section 11 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.Section 11-3 again contained specific provisions concerning the right of access to trial documents by a party to a civil or criminal case.In this case, access was restricted only on specific grounds mentioned in the Act.The Court continued that a party's right of access to trial documents was part of the requirements of a fair trial as prescribed in Article 6 of the ECHR and section 21 of the Constitution Act.As judicial authorities, courts were responsible for the application of these requirements.According to the Supreme Court, it is irrelevant whether a request for access to a trial document is made while the case is still pending or when the case has already been closed.In both cases, the courts shall see to it that the party's rights are protected.Considering the procedure, the Court concluded that when access is requested to a document in a civil or criminal case, the decision on the request has to be made in a composition in which the court, according to law, shall decide civil or criminal cases. 29.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 7.11.2003 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2729; 1258/1/03 Reference to source KHO 2003:77. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2003 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2003 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2003 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2007 Pages: pp. 317-330 Subject
freedom of expression,
public access to documents,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 3, 17 and 24 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities = lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 3 §, 17 § och 24 § = laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 3 §, 17 § ja 24 §. ECHR-10 Abstract A journalist had requested from the security police for a document which contained information about Finnish citizens who were suspected of having contacts with foreign intelligence services.With reference to the secrecy obligations prescribed in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities the security police denied the request on the grounds that giving access to the document could compromise state security and Finland's international relations.The administrative court rejected the journalist's appeal.In the appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court, the journalist claimed, among other things, that concepts such as "state security" or "compromising international relations" were very broad.The security police should have given more detailed and specified grounds for its refusal.The journalist also mentioned the role of the media as a "public watchdog" and referred to the following decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v.Norway (judgment of 20 May 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III), Jersild v.Denmark (judgment of 23 September 1994, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A, Vol. 298), De Haes and Gijsels v.Belgium (judgment of 24 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I), Prager and Oberschlick v.Austria (judgment of 26 April 1995, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A, Vol. 313) and Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II).The Supreme Administrative Court decided the case on the basis of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities and did not refer to the ECHR or the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.The Court found that the security police had received the document by means of a confidential exchange of information and while carrying out its tasks in maintaining state security.It was not obvious that access to the document would not compromise state security.The Supreme Administrative Court did not change the decision of the administrative court. 21.4.2004 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 2.3.2004 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 413; 2548/1/03 Reference to source KHO 2004:25. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2004 January-June Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2004 januari-juni Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2004 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2008 Pages: pp. 197-202 Subject
freedom of expression,
right to receive, seek and impart information,
public access to documents,,
Relevant legal provisions sections 3, 17, 24-1-1 and 24-2 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; section 12 of the Constitution Act = lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 3 §, 17 §, 24 § 1 mom. 1 punkten och 24 § 2 mom.; grundlagen 12 § = laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta 3 §, 17 § 24 § 1 mom. 1 kohta ja 24 § 2 mom.; perustuslaki 12 §. ECHR-10 Abstract A journalist had requested from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs access to three documents.The Ministry refused with reference to the fact that the documents were coded messages in the field of foreign affairs administration and concerned political negotiations with a foreign state.They were therefore secret documents as prescribed in section 24-1-1 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities. In his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the journalist referred, among other things, to the principle of proportionality in section 17 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities as well as to section 12 of the Constitution Act concerning freedom of expression and right of access to information.He also made a general reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning freedom of expression and the media.In the journalist's view, a limitation to a constitutional right had to be interpreted narrowly, in order to guarantee the widest possible implementation of access to information despite the limitations.He challenged the Ministry's decision to declare the entire documents as secret and pointed out that in fact parts of the documents had already been published in some newspapers.According to the Ministry, this had happened without the Ministry's consent. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal.It ruled that the requested documents as a whole were secret documents and that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs had the right to decide whether access is granted to these documents.In the Court's view, the fact that parts of the documents had been published in the media was irrelevant in this case.The Supreme Administrative Court based its decision on the Act on the Openness of Government Activities only and did not refer to the Constitution Act or any international human rights provisions. 25.4.2005 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 12.7.2007 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 1830; 2752/3/06 Reference to source KHO 2007:48. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2007 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2007 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2007 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2010 Pages: pp. 141-174 Subject
aliens,
residence permit,
family reunification,
public access to documents,
national security,
effective remedy,
Relevant legal provisions sections 11-1, 11-2 and 24-1-9 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; sections 31 and 45 of the Administrative Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act = lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 11 § 1 mom. och 2 mom. och 24 § 1 mom. 9 punkten; förvaltningslag 31 § och 45 §; grundlagen 21 § = laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 11 § 1 ja 2 mom. ja 24 § 1 mom. 9 kohta; hallintolaki 31 § ja 45 §; perustuslaki 21 §. ECHR-8; ECHR-13 Abstract The Finnish Immigration Service had rejected X's application for a residence permit on the basis of a family tie.As grounds for its decision the Immigration Service stated that the Security Police was not in favour of granting X a residence permit.On X's appeal, the administrative court ruled that the Immigration Service could not reject X's application with reference solely to the opinion of the Security Police.In the court's view, the matter had not been appropriately clarified and the Immigration Service had failed to state adequate reasons for its decision.The court referred the matter back to the Immigration Service which then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court discussed at length the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, referring to the cases of Chahal v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V); Al-Nashif v.Bulgaria (judgment of 20 June 2002); Brinks v. the Netherlands (decision of 5 April 2005); Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v.Sweden (judgment of 6 June 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VII); Lupsa v.Romania (jugdment of 8 June 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VII); Kaya v.Romania (judgment of 12 October 2006); and Jasper v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 February 2000).The Supreme Administrative Court found that it is apparent from the case law of the human rights court 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.The Court continued that, in order to meet the requirements for effective remedy stipulated in Article 13 of the ECHR and section 21 of the Constitution Act, an administrative court has a duty to consider whether there is a just balance between individual rights on the one hand and public order and national security on the other.The Court then ruled that, in view of the exceptions to the parties' right of access to documents, as laid down by law, and the duty of authorities to clarify a matter and to state reasons for their decisions in cases in which national security is involved, the administrative court should not have referred the matter back to the Immigration Service.Instead, it should have reviewed the confidential material in order to assess whether there were sufficient grounds to deny X's residence permit with reference to reasons of public interest, public safety and national security.In order to avoid any further delay, the Supreme Administrative Court did not return the case to the administrative court, but considered X's appeal instead.It heard the representatives of the Security Police in a closed oral hearing and concluded that the material upon which the opinion of the Security Police was based could be classified as secret documents to which a party had no right of access under the Act on the Openness of Government Activities.The Court found that the reasons presented by the Security Police were as such worth noticing.However, in the Court's view, the reasons were not weighty enough for denying X a residence permit when the right to the protection of family life was balanced against the security interests of the state in this case.The Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Immigration Service and referred the matter back to the Immigration Service. 12.5.2010 / 28.3.2011 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 12.7.2007 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 1831; 757/3/07 Reference to source KHO 2007:49. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2007 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2007 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2007 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2010 Pages: pp. 174-207 Subject
citizenship,
public access to documents,
effective remedy,
national security,
Relevant legal provisions section 13 of the Nationality Act; sections 11-1, 11-2 and 24-1-9 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; sections 31 and 45 of the Administrative Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act = medborgarskapslag 13 §; lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 11 § 1 och 2 mom. och 24 § 1 mom. 9 punkten; förvaltningslag 31 § och 45 §; grundlagen 21 § = kansalaisuuslaki 13 §; laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 11 § 1 ja 2 mom. ja 24 § 1 mom. 9 kohta; hallintolaki 31 § ja 45 §; perustuslaki 21 §. ECHR-8; ECHR-13 Abstract The Immigration Service had rejected X's citizenship application with reference to the opinion of the Security Police which did not favour X's application.On X's appeal, the administrative court returned the matter to the Immigration Service.The court held, among other things, that the Immigration Service could not reject the application with reference solely to the opinion of the Security Police and that the Immigration Service should have stated more clearly the reasons why X's naturalisation would jeopardize national security and public order.The Immigration Service appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court found that although denying acquisition of citizenship does not as such mean interference with the rights prescribed in Article 8 of the ECHR, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights serves as guidelines as fas as the application of the principle of effective remedy in citizenship matters is concerned.Moreover, to withhold from a person information which concerns that person himself or herself may as such touch upon the right to the protection of private life under Article 8.The Court discussed at length the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, referring to the cases of Chahal v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V); Al-Nashif v.Bulgaria (judgment of 20 June 2002); Brinks v. the Netherlands (decision of 5 April 2005); Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v.Sweden (judgment of 6 June 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VII); Lupsa v.Romania (judgment of 8 June 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-VII); Kaya v.Romania (judgment of 12 October 2006); and Jasper v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 February 2000).It found 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.The Court continued that, in order to meet the requirements for effective remedy stipulated in Article 13 of the ECHR and section 21 of the Constitution Act, an administrative court has a duty to consider whether there is a just balance between individual rights on the one hand and public order and national security on the other.The Court then ruled that, in view of the exceptions to the parties' right of access to documents, as laid down by law, and the duty of authorities to clarify a matter and to state reasons for their decisions in cases in which national security is involved, the administrative court should not have referred the matter back to the Immigration Service.Instead, it should have reviewed the confidential material in order to assess whether there were sufficient grounds to deny X's citizenship application with reference to reasons of public interest, public safety and national security.In order to avoid any further delay, the Supreme Administrative Court did not return the case to the administrative court, but considered X's appeal instead.It heard the representatives of the Security Police in a closed oral hearing, also concerning the confidential material.Having also weighed individual rights against national security interests, the Court concluded that there were well-founded reasons for suspecting that X's naturalisation will jeopardize the security of the state or public order as prescribed in section 13 of the Nationality Act.X's appeal agains the decision of the Immigration Service was rejected. 17.5.2010 / 28.3.2011 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 8] |
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,
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
|
|
|
|