Date when decision was rendered: 20.3.2009

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

Reference: Report no. 644; 3062/3/07

Reference to source

KHO 2009:28.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2009 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2009 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2009 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: pp. 253-259

Subject

non-discrimination, citizenship,
icke-diskriminering, medborgarskap,
syrjintäkielto, kansalaisuus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 13-1-6, 13-2 and 18-2 of the Nationality Act; section 6-2 of the Constitution Act

= medborgarskapslag 13 § 1 mom. 6 punkten, 13 § 2 mom. och 18 § 2 mom.; grundlagen 6 § 2 mom.

= kansalaisuuslaki 13 § 1 mom. 6 kohta, 13 § 2 mom. ja 18 § 2 mom.; perustuslaki 6 § 2 mom.

Abstract

The Finnish Immigration Service (former Directorate of Immigration) had rejected X's application for Finnish citizenship on the grounds that X did not meet the language skills requirement as set in the Nationality Act.The administrative court rejected X's appeal and he appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court.According to the Nationality Act, one of the general requirements for obtaining Finnish citizenship on application is that the applicant has satisfactory oral and written skills in the Finnish or Swedish language or instead of oral skills similar skills in the Finnish sign language.Exceptions to the language skills requirement can be made if the applicant cannot meet the requirement because of his or her state of health, sensory handicap or a speech defect.In interpreting this provision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the preparatory works of the Nationality Act and noted that an exception could be made on the basis of the applicant's state of health if the applicant's condition or disability was of such nature that it would be impossible to meet the language skills requirement or it would be unreasonable to expect that the requirement is met.The Court also held that in assessing whether the requirement is unreasonable, the prohibition of discrimination, as prescribed in section 6-2 of the Constitution Act, had to be taken into account.Section 6 prohibits discrimination on the ground of age, health or disability, among other grounds.In this case, the applicant X was over 60 years old.He had been active in trying to meet the language skills requirement, by for example taking courses in the Finnish language.His oral skills in Finnish had been assessed as satisfactory whereas he had not been able to meet the requirement as far as written skills were concerned.X had also submitted to the Court a speech therapist's report in which it was stated that X had a reading disorder.X had previously referred to learning difficulties, but his reading disorder had been only just detected.Taking into account X's age and his reading disorder, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that it was unreasonable to expect him to meet the language skills requirement and that there were sufficient grounds to make an exception.X's citizenship application could thus not be rejected on the grounds of insufficient language skills.The case was referred back to the Immigration Service.

10.7.2009 / 21.10.2010 / RHANSKI

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,
medborgarskap, allmänna handlingars offentlighet, effektiva rättsmedel, nationell säkerhet,
kansalaisuus, asiakirjojen julkisuus, tehokas oikeussuojakeino, kansallinen turvallisuus,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 16.4.2010

Judicial body: Helsinki Administrative Court = Helsingfors förvaltningsdomstol = Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 10/0303/5

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

citizenship, children, paternity, best interests of the child, rights of the child,
medborgarskap, barn, faderskap, barnets bästa, barnets rättigheter,
kansalaisuus, lapset, isyys, lapsen etu, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 4 and 32 of the Nationality Act

= medborgarskapslag 4 § och 32 §

= kansalaisuuslaki 4 § ja 32 §.

CRC

Abstract

X was a Finnish citizen and married to a Kenyan citizen Y.Their child Z was born in Finland in 2007 and acquired Finnish citizenship because the father X was a Finnish citizen.In 2008, X's paternity was annulled by a court decision.According to the Nationality Act, if the husband's paternity has been annulled or if a claim which has resulted in his paternity being annulled has been brought before the child has reached the age of five years, the child loses the Finnish citizenship which he or she has acquired on the basis of his or her father's citizenship.A decision on this is based on the overall consideration of the child's situation.In 2009, the Finnish Immigration Service made a decision to the effect that Z should lose the Finnish citizenship.The Immigration Service based its decision on the facts that the mother Y had objected to any investigation of paternity and had also not taken any action in order for the child to acquire Kenyan citizenship in accordance with Kenyan law.Y claimed that she did not know the child's father and that the child could not acquire Kenyan citizenship without the investigation of paternity.The administrative court noted that having lost the Finnish citizenship, Z could under the circumstances become stateless.According to the Nationality Act, the provisions of the Act on the loss of citizenship must not be applied if, as a consequence of the application of the provisions, a person were to become stateless.The court also referred to the best interests of the child and to international obligations on the rights of the child which are binding on Finland.It concluded that Z must be regarded as a Finnish citizen, despite the annulment of X's paternity.The administrative court revoked the decision of the Immigration Service and returned the matter to the Immigration Service for a new consideration.

26.1.2011 / 26.1.2011 / RHANSKI