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,
utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, familjeåterförening, allmänna handlingars offentlighet, nationell säkerhet, effektiva rättsmedel,
ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, perheen yhdistäminen, asiakirjojen julkisuus, kansallinen turvallisuus, tehokas oikeussuojakeino,

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

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: 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