![[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 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 7.3.1997 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 557; 136/3/97 Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
deported persons,
freedom of movement,
respect for family life,
criminality,
aliens,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 40-1-1 and 40-3 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 40 § 1 mom. 1 punkten, 40 § 3 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 40 § 1 mom. 1 kohta, 40 § 3 mom. ECHR-8, Articles 8a-1 and 48-3 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (as amended by the Treaty Establishing the European Union) Abstract A was a citizen of the European Union.Since 1986 he had resided partly in Finland, partly in his home country.He had a Finnish wife with whom he had two children.Divorce proceeding were pending.He also had a Finnish girlfriend, who was pregnant with his child.A had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months for a serious drug offence and a deportation decision was given on the basis of section 40-1-1 of the Aliens` Act by the Directorate of Immigration.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.Considering the nature of the crime, the Supreme Administrative Court argued that A's deportation was based on grounds of public policy and public security as specified in section 40-3 of the Aliens` Act and Article 48-3 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.A's freedom of movement as a citizen of the European Union, which is based on Article 8a-1 of the EC Treaty, did not prevent his deportation.On account of these provisions and considering also Article 8 of the ECHR, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration to deport A to his home country and to deny him for five years entry into Finland was not against the law and did not violate A's rights.A's appeal was dismissed. 2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 14] |
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 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 19.2.1988 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 673; 5038/7/87 Reference to source KHO 1988-A-49. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1988 A, General Part Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1988 A, allmän del Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1988 A, yleinen osa Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court Date of publication: 1989 Pages: pp. 99-104 Subject
aliens,
deported persons,
refugee status,
criminality,
respect for family life,
political parties,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 12, 18, 21 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 12 §, 18 §, 21 § = ulkomaalaislaki 12 §, 18 §, 21 §. Articles 1 and 32 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees Abstract The applicant had arrived in Finland from Namibia in 1979 with a three-year scholarship from the Department for Development Cooperation of the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.His last residence permit expired in 1987.According to his statement, he was a former member of the SWAPO liberation movement in Namibia.SWAPO therefore did not support the renewal of his passport.While in Finland in 1982, he received a Travel and Identity Document issued by the UN Council for Namibia, with a right to return to Zambia, which was in force until December 1988. After his training ended in 1982, he studied and worked for other employers, but later became unemployed.He also married a Finn, with whom he had two children.He had a third child with another person in Finland. In 1987, the Ministry of the Interior decided to deport him to Zambia on the basis of section 18 of the Aliens' Act, immediately after he had served a prison sentence of a total of 8 months and 20 days for several smaller crimes, and to prohibit his return to the country for an unspecified time on the basis of section 21 of the Aliens' Act.The applicant was unemployed, failed to pay child support, used alcohol abundantly, used his money on different games and continuously committed small crimes.According to the Ministry, he had not adjusted to Finnish society, and thus was a threat to it.In Zambia, the applicant would probably be placed in a refugee camp. The applicant objected to the deportation, claiming that he was a de facto political refugee, as he had been granted refugee status by the UNHCR, and that his life and health would be in danger if he was deported to southern Africa. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the applicant had grounded reasons to fear persecution both in his home country Namibia and in Zambia, the country to which he had a right to return.It had not been shown that he would have been granted asylum in any country.He should thus be considered as a refugee lawfully residing in Finland who could not be deported on the grounds mentioned in the decision of the Ministry of the Interior.According to section 18 of the Aliens' Act and Articles 1 and 32 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, an alien or refugee can only be deported on the grounds of national security or public order and security, or when convicted of a particularily serious offence.None of these grounds were present in the case.The Supreme Administrative Court therefore quashed the decision of the Ministry of the Interior. 3.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 17.4.1998 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 674; 851/3/98 Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
deported persons,
respect for family life,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
non-discrimination,
Relevant legal provisions sections 40 and 41 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 40 §, 41 § = ulkomaalaislaki 40 §, 41 §. ECHR-3, ECHR-8, ECHR-14 Abstract B is a Ugandan citizen who had resided in Finland since 1991.In 1993, he was convicted of attempted manslaughter for having raped several women, knowing that he had contracted HIV infection.Upon release of B from prison, the Aliens Office decided to deport him to Uganda on account of his criminal behaviour and lack of required residence permit.B appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.He argued that his deportation would amount to a violation of Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR.As to Article 3, B argued that the lack of adequate health care in Uganda would put his life in danger and subject him to inhuman and degrading treatment.In addition, B stated that he, as an alleged Rwandan refugee, would face the risk of being deported from Uganda to Rwanda and there, as a consequence of his earlier activities in the opposition struggle against the Rwandan Government, he would most likely become a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment.Taking into account the present health condition of B and the availability of basic HIV/AIDS treatment in Uganda, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that no violation of Article 3 could be disclosed.Furthermore, the Court did not foresee any imminent danger of B being deported to Rwanda.As to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 14, the Court dismissed the charges due to lack of substantiated proof.B had divorced his Finnish wife in 1995 and no other grounds which could amount to a violation of B's right to family life had been put forward.Neither could the Court disclose any discrimination based on race or color. B lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights, but the case was declared inadmissible (Application No. 40900/98). 8.11.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 26.3.2002 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 658; 2827/3/00 Reference to source KHO 2002:28. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2002 January-June Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2002 januari-juni Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2002 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2004 Pages: pp. 213-224 Subject
respect for private life,
respect for family life,
aliens,
deported persons,
deportation,
legal protection,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 8, 37, 38, 39 and 43 of the Aliens Act; sections 3, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC (on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health); section 32-3 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act = utlänningslag 8 §, 37 §, 38 §, 39 § och 43 §; rådets direktiv 64/221/EEG (om samordningen av särskilda åtgärder som gäller utländska medborgares rörlighet och bosättning och som är berättigade med hänsyn till allmän ordning, säkerhet eller hälsa) 3, 8 och 9 artikel; förvaltningsprocesslag 32 § 3 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 8 §, 37 §, 38 §, 39 § ja 43 §; neuvoston direktiivi 64/221/ETY (ulkomaalaisten liikkumista ja oleskelua koskevien, yleiseen järjestykseen ja turvallisuuteen sekä kansanterveyteen perustuvien erityistoimenpiteiden yhteensovittamisesta) 3, 8 ja 9 artiklat; hallintolainkäyttölaki 32 § 3 mom. ECHR-3; ECHR-8; CRC Abstract A, who was an EU-citizen, had been sentenced to imprisonment, in Finland, for attempted manslaughter of his former wife with whom he also had a child.A court of first instance had later imposed a restraining order on A.The Directorate of Immigration had deported A to his home country on grounds of public order and public security.It also decided to prohibit A from entry to Finland for a period of five years.When making its decision on A's deportation, the Directorate of Immigration also took into account Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and concluded that these provisions did not prevent A's deportation.According to the Directorate of Immigration, the decision on A's deportation could be enforced despite a possible appeal against it.A's deportation had taken place on the following day after the decision had been served on him.Having appealed to the administrative court, which did not change the decision of the Directorate of Immigration, A appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court.In his appeal, he referred, among other provisions, to Article 8 of the ECHR and to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Administrative Court referred to Council Directive 64/221/EEC and to the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning this directive, according to which an EU-citizen who has been deported from another EU-country has the same right to legal remedies against administrative actions as the citizens of the deporting country.This means that the person should at least have the possibility to initiate an appeal procedure before the decision on deportation is enforced and, in that way, postpone the deportation.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that A's deportation had been carried out in breach of Council Directive 64/221/EEC.It overturned the decisions of the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court and returned the matter to the former for a new consideration.Considering that the decision was overturned because of a procedural fault and noting the grounds presented for A's deportation, the Supreme Administrative Court, with reference to section 32-3 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, ordered that the overturned decision (prohibiting A from re-entering the country) was still to be complied with.The Court did not take a stand on the substantial conditions for A's deportation. 9.5.2003 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 27.11.2002 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 3103; 1859/3/01 Reference to source 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
respect for private life,
respect for family life,
aliens,
deported persons,
deportation,
Relevant legal provisions sections 40-1-3 and 41-1 of the Aliens Act; section 5 of the Nationality Act = utlänningslag 40 § 1 mom. 3 punkten, 41 § 1 mom.; medborgarskapslag 5 § = ulkomaalaislaki 40 § 1 mom. 3 kohta, 41 § 1 mom.; kansalaisuuslaki 5 §. ECHR-8 Abstract The Directorate of Immigration had ordered that X, who was an alien, was to be deported and to be refused entry into Finland for five years.The administrative court had dismissed X's appeal.The Supreme Administrative Court granted X leave to appeal. X had moved to Finland with his mother at the age of 7 in 1985.They were granted residence permits as X's mother was married to a Finnish citizen.Her husband had adopted X while they were abroad.The adoption was later confirmed by a Finnish court.X had a child with a Finnish citizen, and he shared the custody of the child with the child's mother, although he did not live with them.X had committed several offences, among them a serious drug offence.He had received treatment for his drug problem. X had had permanent residence permit in Finland since 1993.Having had his habitual residence in Finland since he was a child, X had, by the time the Supreme Administrative Court considered his case, fulfilled the criteria for acquiring Finnish nationality by notification, in accordance with section 5 of the Nationality Act.When considering the circumstances of X's case in their entirety, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized the fact that X had lived in Finland since he was a child and had gone to school here.He had integrated himself into Finnish society and had no ties to his country of birth.The Court also noted that offences a person has committed do not form an obstacle to acquiring Finnish nationality when nationality is acquired on the basis of the fact that the person has lived in Finland for a long time since childhood.On these grounds, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered that X could not be deported.In its decision, the Court referred to the Aliens Act and to Article 8 of the ECHR. 9.5.2003 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 26.11.2003 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2970; 764/3/01 Reference to source KHO 2003:82. 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. 374-385 Subject
refugee status,
deported persons,
Relevant legal provisions Section 36 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 36 § = ulkomaalaislaki 36 §. Article 1-C-5 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract A and his family had arrived in Finland as quota refugees in 1990.In 1999, the Directorate of Immigration decided to abrogate A's refugee status.A no longer needed protection as the circumstances which caused him/her to be a refugee no longer existed.The administrative court rejected A's appeal, and A took the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.A claimed that the principle of equality had been violated as only A's refugee status had been abrogated but not that of other quota refugees originating from A's country of nationality.A also claimed that the real reason behind the decision was that A had been sentenced to imprisonment for a serious drug offence.As long as A had refugee status, he/she could not be deported.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that in Finnish administrative practice, abrogation of a person's refugee status was rare and it was not done systematically as soon as the human rights situation in the country of origin had improved.Therefore, the abrogation of refugee status in an individual case must be based on a well-founded reason.According to legislation concerning aliens, commission of a serious crime is a factor which may be taken into account when considering an alien's entry into a country or his/her residence in the country.The Court found that there had been no abuse of discretionary power nor a violation of the principle of equality when the Directorate of Immigration had started the procedure for the abrogation of A's refugee status.The Court then discussed the abrogation of refugee status under the Aliens Act and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.It pointed out that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration was based on a general assessment of the social changes in A's country of nationality.However, the matter should also have been assessed taking into account A's individual need of protection and considering whether A could still refuse to avail himself/herself of the protection of his/her country of nationality.As the documents on interviews with A and his/her family made at the refugee camp were not available, no such evidence had been presented on the grounds of which the Directorate of Immigration could have abrogated A's refugee status on the basis of section 36 of the Aliens Act.The Court concluded that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration was against the law and quashed this decision as well as the decision of the administrative court. 15.1.2004 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 4.3.2003 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 467; 1996/3/02 Reference to source KHO 2003:8. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2003 January-June Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2003 januari-juni Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2003 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2005 Pages: pp. 61-73 Subject
respect for family life,
asylum,
deported persons,
deportation,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 20, 30, 31, 37, 38 and 43 of the Aliens Act; section 10 of the Constitution Act = utlänningslag 20 §, 30 §, 31 §, 37 §, 38 § och 43 §; grundlagen 10 § = ulkomaalaislaki 20 §, 30 §, 31 §, 37 §, 38 § ja 43 §; perustuslaki 10 §. ECHR-8 Abstract The Directorate of Immigration had rejected A's application for asylum and residence permit.A was to be deported to his home country and he was also refused entry to Finland for two years.Both the administrative court and the Supreme Administrative Court rejected A's appeal. In his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, A referred to Article 8 of the ECHR.At the reception centre for asylum seekers A had met another asylum seeker, B, and had lived together with her for nine months.B was then deported to her home country and was refused entry to Finland for two years.After two years she returned to Finland for a few days with a tourist visa.She applied for asylum in Finland again and told then that she was pregnant.A claimed that under the circumstances his deportation would infringe with his right to private and family life as prescribed in the Constitution Act and in the ECHR. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the definition of a "family tie" under Article 8 of the ECHR did not include a situation in which a couple lives together in a reception centre for asylum seekers, after having previously lived together for a short period of time and having thereafter been separated for over two years.The Aliens Act or the ECHR do not grant an asylum seeker who has no residence permit and no other ties to Finland the right to choose Finland as a place of residence for himself/herself or his/her family.The Court concluded that A's deportation was not in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. See also N. v.Finland (Application no. 38885/02), judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 July 2005. 16.4.2004 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [9 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 21.3.2003 Judicial body: Helsinki Administrative Court = Helsingfors förvaltningsdomstol = Helsingin hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 03/0156/2; 06500/02/5900 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
right to liberty,
security of person,
deported persons,
prison conditions,
prisoners,
Relevant legal provisions Section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; section 19 of the Act on International Co-Operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions; Chapter 2, sections 13-1 and 13-2 of the Act on the enforcement of penal sanctions = grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; lag om internationellt samarbete vid verkställighet av vissa straffrättsliga påföljder 19 §; lag om verkställighet av straff 2 kapitel 13 § 1 mom. och 13 § 2 mom. = perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; laki kansainvälisestä yhteistoiminnasta eräiden rikosoikeudellisten seuraamusten täytäntöönpanossa 19 §; laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta 2 luku 13 § 1 mom. ja 13 § 2 mom. ECHR-5 Abstract An Estonian citizen A had been sentenced in Finland to imprisonment for a drug offence.The Directorate of Immigration had decided on A's deportation once A is released from prison.The Ministry of Justice ordered that A is transferred to Estonia in order to serve the prison sentence there.A appealed against the Ministry's decision to the administrative court. The administrative court noted that the formal conditions for A's transfer, as prescribed in the Act on International Co-Operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions, were fulfilled.However, section 9-4 of the Constitution Act had to be taken into account as well, as a specific legal condition for the transfer.Section 9-4 provides that a foreigner shall not be deported, extradited or returned to another country, if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence, torture or other treatment violating human dignity.According to the court, attention should be paid, in particular, to prison conditions in the state to which the person is transferred and to the time period after which the person would have the possibility of being released on parole.In Estonia, a person may be released on parole after having served two-thirds of his/her sentence, whereas in Finland it is after one-half of the sentence has been served.The administrative court considered that although the carrying out of the sentence in Estonia may in practice prolong A's time in imprisonment, this did not as such contain a danger of treatment violating human dignity.Furthermore, in the court's view, there was no violation of Article 5 of the ECHR, as long as the term of imprisonment ordered by the Finnish court was not exceeded.With reference to reports submitted by the Ministry of Justice, the court then noted that the prison conditions in Estonia in general could not as such result in treatment violating human dignity.Admitt edly, the security conditions in prisons were not altogether stable, but on the other hand the court saw no reason to doubt that the prison authorities in Eston ia would not have the means and the intention to prevent any possible threats to the security of the prisoners.The administrative court rejected A's appeal.Th e decision is final. See also European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 9764/03, decision on admissibility 2 December 2003 (partly inadmissible) and final decision on admissibility 15 June 2004 (inadmissible). 22.4.2004 / 2.1.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [10 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 21.9.2004 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2353; 696/3/04 Reference to source KHO 2004:88. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2004 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2004 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2004 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2008 Pages: pp. 167-172 Subject
respect for private life,
respect for family life,
limitations of rights and freedoms,
deported persons,
Relevant legal provisions sections 18b, 40, 41 and 43 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 18b §, 40 §, 41 § och 43 § = ulkomaalaislaki 18b §, 40 §, 41 § ja 43 §. ECHR-8; Articles 17, 18-1, 39-3, 46-1 and 55 of the EC Treaty; Articles 1, 2-1 and 3-1 and 2 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health Abstract The Directorate of Immigration had decided to deport A to his home country Estonia, because A had committed several offences in Finland and was in the country without a residence permit.The administrative court rejected A's appeal.The court considered A's case also in the light of Article 8 of the ECHR.A's mother and brother and his stepfather and stepsister lived in Finland and were Finnish citizens.A had reached the age of majority and was an Estonian citizen.The court ruled that A's deportation was not in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, considering that A had repeatedly committed several offences while in Finland.The court gave its decision in February 2004.A appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court which ruled that the case is to be returned to the Directorate of Immigration for a new consideration.Estonia had become a member state of the European Union on 1 May 2004.As from that date A was an EU citizen, and therefore EC law had to be taken into account when deciding on A's deportation.The Supreme Administrative Court referred to Council Directive 64/221/EEC and to the case law of the European Court of Justice.It noted, among other things, that the deportation of an EU citizen on the grounds of public policy presupposes the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirement of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.The Court did not take a stand whether these conditions had been fulfilled in A's case. 25.4.2005 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [11 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 23.1.2015 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 158; 1712/3/13 Reference to source KHO 2015:14. 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,
residence permit,
deported persons,
Relevant legal provisions sections 7-2 and 58-4 of the Aliens Act; sections 33-1, 38 and 39-1 of the Administrative Procedure Act = utlänningslag 7 § 2 mom. och 58 § 4 mom.; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 § 1 mom., 38 § och 39 § 1 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 7 § 2 mom. ja 58 § 4 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 § 1 mom., 38 § ja 39 § 1 mom. ECHR-3; ECHR-6-1; Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Abstract X was a Somali citizen and had been issued with a fixed-term residence permit in Finland on the basis of humanitarian protection.When X had been charged with a criminal offence in Finland, the police had commissioned a language analysis in order to establish X's identity.The charges were later dismissed.In the criminal proceedings, the court of appeal had ruled that the results of the language analysis were inadmissible as written evidence, because the analysis was anonymous and the analyst could thus not be heard as a witness in court.The language analysis had shown that X's place of origin was in fact Somaliland, not southern Somalia as he had claimed when applying for a residence permit.Having received the results of the language analysis from the police, the Finnish Immigration Service decided to cancel X's residence permit and to deport him to Somaliland.The Immigration Service held that X had misled the authorities when applying for a residence permit, by knowingly giving false information on his identity and on other matters relevant to the decision.The security situation in Somaliland was stable and X would not face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment in that area.The administrative court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. In his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court X, among other things, questioned the results of the language analysis and the competence of the analyst.X claimed that the administrative court should not have taken into account the language analysis statement, because it was anonymous and the analyst could thus not be heard in court in person and because it was submitted in connection with criminal charges which were dismissed.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that in criminal proceedings it is required that there is a possibility for an oral hearing of witnesses and experts so that the defendant can hear a witness and assess the credibility of a witness statement.However, in administrative proceedings concerning immigration and aliens an oral hearing is not required and the proceedings are mainly written.In administrative matters written evidence can be taken into consideration without the possibility of always hearing the person, who drew up the statement or report, as a witness when an appeal is made against an administrative decision.The Supreme Administrative Court held that, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the administrative court was responsible for reviewing the matter and for taking into account the language analysis as clarification of the grounds of the decision subject to appeal.This could be done without hearing the analyst as a witness.Also, no particular reason had been provided in this case for hearing the analyst as a witness.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that it is for the administrative court to decide whether hearing of a witness is necessary.The administrative court had not acted in defiance of the law in this case. In discussing the legal provisions relevant to the case, the Supreme Administrative Court also referred to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Maaouia v France (judgment of 5 October 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-X) and Naumov v Albania (decision of 4 January 2005) and noted that while decisions regarding the stay and deportation of aliens do not concern the determination of a person's civil rights or obligations, Article 6 of the ECHR was not applicable in this case.The court also noted that because the case was not concerning EU law and international protection as established in the EU Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU), Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was not applicable. 19.2.2016 / 19.2.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [12 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 23.12.2008 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 3443; 2381/3/07 Reference to source KHO 2008:90. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2008 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2008 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2008 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Prima Oy Date of publication: 2011 Pages: 537-560 Subject
aliens,
deported persons,
criminality,
respect for family life,
respect for private life,
Relevant legal provisions sections 146, 147, 149-1, 150-1 and 150-2 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. och 150 § 1 och 2 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. ja 150 § 1 ja 2 mom. ECHR-3; ECHR-8 Abstract X, who was a Somali citizen and originated from Somaliland, had arrived in Finland as an asylum seeker with his father C and had been issued with a residence permit on the basis of family ties in 1995.At the time X had been 10 or 12 years old (he had on various occasions given two different dates of birth and his age had thus not been definitely established).During his stay in Finland X had repeatedly committed criminal offences, including several robberies, assaults and thefts.In 2006, the Finnish Immigration Service decided that X is deported to Somaliland.After the deportation decision X had continued his criminal activities.He was suspected of an assault and of several robberies and thefts.X appealed against the decision of the Immigration Service.Both the administrative court and the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there were sufficient grounds for deportation as prescribed in the Aliens Act: X had been found guilty of several offences, carrying a maximum sentence of imprisonment for one year or more.Through his activities, he had shown that he was liable to endanger other people's safety.As provided for in the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasised the overall consideration of the deportation decision in which account must be taken of the facts on which the decision is based and the facts and circumstances otherwise affecting the matter as a whole.In addition to the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed at length the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, pertaining to expulsion of aliens following a criminal conviction as well as the relevant criteria in assessing whether an expulsion measure is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.It took notice of the following decisions in particular: Ahmed v Austria (17 December 1996), Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands (23 May 2007), Nnyanzi v The United Kingdom (8 April 2008), Üner v The Netherlands (18 October 2006), Kaya v Germany (28 June 2007), Emre v Switzerland (22 May 2008) and Maslov v Austria (23 June 2008). The Supreme Administrative Court referred, among other sources, to the reports by the UNHCR and the IOM according to which the situation in Somaliland was stable and peaceful and people originating from Somaliland were in general not in need of international protection.X had told he was a member of a clan family which was the largest clan in Somaliland.Based on a report by the IOM and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands), the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the expulsion to Somaliland of a person belonging to the largest clan family in that area would not generally expose the person concerned to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. Regarding the protection of private and family life the Supreme Administrative Court noted that X was an adult and had no family members in Finland (as defined in section 37 of the Aliens Act).X had arrived in Finland with C but had told later that he was in fact not C's son.X had also told that his mother still lived in Somalia.The Court concluded that X did not have a family life in Finland, within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR.Because of his young age at the time, X could not have influenced the decision to come to Finland nor his way of entering the country.His integration into Finnish society had failed, for reasons that were not altogether attributable to him.However, despite the length of his stay, he had not developed strong ties to Finland.Deportation to Somaliland would mean poorer living conditions for X.However, taking into account the long-term serious threat to public safety caused by X's criminal activities, his deportation did not amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.Considering that X's criminal acts had mostly been committed against persons strangers to him and had thus caused a threat to public order and safety, that he had continued his criminal activities after the deportation decision, that he had no strong ties to Finland, that the situation in Somaliland was stable and that X had ties to Somaliland and the largest clan family in that area, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the considerations speaking for X's deportation weighed more heavily than those against deportation.It upheld the decisions of the Immigration Service and the administrative court. 16.3.2016 / 29.5.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [13 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 23.12.2008 Judicial body: Supreme Administative Court = Hösta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 3444; 2412/3/07 Reference to source KHO 2008:91. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2008 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2008 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2008 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Prima Oy Date of publication: 2011 Pages: 560-581 Subject
aliens,
deported persons,
criminality,
respect for family life,
respect for private life,
Relevant legal provisions sections 146, 147, 149-1, 150-1 and 150-2 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. och 150 § 1 och 2 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. ja 150 § 1 ja 2 mom. ECHR-3; ECHR-8 Abstract X was a Somali citizen and had arrived in Finland at the age of 10.He had been issued with a residence permit on the basis of family ties in 1992.During his stay in Finland he had committed several criminal offences, including robberies, assaults and thefts.In 2006, the Finnish Immigration Service decided to deport X to Puntland, Somalia.The administrative court upheld the decision.X appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there were sufficient grounds for deportation as prescribed in the Aliens Act: X had been found guilty of repeated offences, among them several robberies, assaults and thefts, for which he had been sentenced to imprisonment for all in all 7½ years.Some of the offences were regarded as aggravated and had been committed against persons strangers to X.After the deportation decision X had continued his criminal activities and was suspected of 16 new offences, among them several thefts.As provided for in the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasised the overall consideration of the deportation decision in which account must be taken of the facts on which the decision is based and the facts and circumstances otherwise affecting the matter as a whole.In addition to the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed at length the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, pertaining to expulsion of aliens following a criminal conviction as well as the relevant criteria in assessing whether an expulsion measure is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.It took notice of the following decisions in particular: Ahmed v Austria (17 December 1996), Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands (23 May 2007), Nnyanzi v The United Kingdom (8 April 2008), Üner v The Netherlands (18 October 2006), Kaya v Germany (28 June 2007), Emre v Switzerland (22 May 2008) and Maslov v Austria (23 June 2008). The Supreme Administrative Court referred, among other sources, to the reports by the UNHCR and the IOM according to which the situation in Puntland was stable and people originating from Puntland were in general not in need of international protection.X had told he was a member of a sub-clan of the largest clan family in Puntland.Based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands), the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the expulsion to Puntland of a person who originated from the area and has clan or family links there would not generally expose the person concerned to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. Regarding the protection of private and family life the Supreme Administrative Court held that X did not have a family life in Finland, within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR.He was an adult and had no family members in Finland (as defined in section 37 of the Aliens Act).However, his mother and six siblings lived in Finland.X had lived most of his childhood and youth in Finland.He had a permament residence permit and he had social and cultural ties with Finland. X had told he came from Mogadishu and had never lived in Puntland.Because of his young age at the time, X could not have influenced the decision to come to Finland nor his way of entering the country.His integration into Finnish society had failed, for reasons that were not altogether attributable to him.Although the situation in Puntland was stable, because of the large number of internally displaced persons in the area, the local authorities had limited possibilities to assist X after his return.X's mother and siblings lived in Finland, and he would have no relatives to turn to in Puntland.While X could apparently rely on clan protection, such protection could not be regarded as sufficient to guarantee X's basic needs.Deporting X to Puntland could therefore seriously endanger his possibilities to cope in the poor circumstances in that area.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that, taking also into account Article 8 of the ECHR, there was no fair balance between the considerations speaking for and against deportation.Despite X's criminal acts which endangered the rights and safety of others, his deportation was under the circumstances not necessary in a democratic society.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Immigration Service. The decision was made by a vote (3-2).Two dissenting justices held that the considerations speaking for deportation outweighed those against deportation.In their view, X's criminal acts had caused a long-term and serious threat to public order and safety.He had not stopped his criminal activities after the deportation decision.X had no strong links to Finland.Although deportation to Puntland would mean poorer living conditions for X, the situation in Puntland was stable and X had clan links there. 16.3.2016 / 16.3.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [14 / 14] |
Date when decision was rendered: 6.2.2015 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 290; 3469/1/13 Reference to source KHO 2015:18. Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för Högst förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet OIkeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
aliens,
refugee status,
residence permit,
deported persons,
criminality,
Relevant legal provisions sections 36-1, 54-1, 54-2, 54-6, 107-1-5, 146-1, 149-1-2 and 150-1 of the Aliens Act; Articles 11-1-c and 16-1 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted = utlänningslag 36 § 1 mom., 54 § 1, 2 och 6 mom., 107 § 1 mom. 5 punkten, 146 § 1 mom., 149 § 1 mom. 2 punkten och 150 § 1 mom.; Rådets direktiv 2004/83/EG om miniminormer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer skall betraktas som flyktingar eller som personer som av andra skäl behöver internationellt skydd samt om dessa personers rättsliga ställning och om innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 11-1-e och 16-1 = ulkomaalaislaki 36 § 1 mom., 54 § 1, 2 ja 6 mom., 107 § 1 mom. 5 kohta, 146 § 1 mom., 149 § 1 mom. 2 kohta ja 150 § 1 mom.; Neuvoston direktiivi 2004/83/EY kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelyä pakolaisiksi tai muuta kansainvälistä suojelua tarvitseviksi henkilöiksi koskevista vähimmäisvaatimuksista sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällöstä 11 artikla 1 kohta e alakohta ja 16 artikla 1 kohta. Article 1-C-5 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract X was an Afghan citizen and had arrived in Finland as a quota refugee in 2004 together with his mother and siblings.At the time X was 17 years of age and still a minor.The UNHCR had designated X and his family as refugees based on the status of X's mother as a widowed single mother without male protection.In 2013, the Finnish Immigration Service withdrew X's refugee status and rejected his application for a new fixed-term residence permit.It also decided that X is deported to Afghanistan and prohibited from entering Finland for five years.X had committed several sexual offences for which he had been convicted to imprisonment and he could be regarded as being a threat to public order or security.On X's appeal, the administrative court held that despite the fact that there were valid grounds for deportation, X was still in need of international protection because of the unstable security and human rights situation in Afghanistan, and therefore he could not be deported to that country.The Immigration Service took the case to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that X's refugee status had been based on the vulnerable situation of his mother, as a single parent to her minor children.X was now an adult.After X left Afghanistan and became a refugee, there had been considerable changes in his personal circumstances which gave cause to believe that he could lead a reasonable life in his home country.Based on various reports presented in the case, the Supreme Administrative Court did not find it plausible that X would be subjected to inhuman treatment or persecution in Afghanistan owing to his ethnic origin, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.The court acknowledged that the overall security situation varied in Afghanistan.However, the province which X originally came from had been reported to be safe.The court concluded that, if returned to that area, X would not face a real risk of being subjected to serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts.X was manifestly no longer in need of protection, because the circumstances in connection with which he had been recognized as a refugee had ceased to exist, and this change in circumstances was significant and non-temporary (section 107 of the Aliens Act). X had applied for a new fixed-term residence permit on the basis of his refugee status.Because he was manifestly no longer in need of international protection, his refugee status could be withdrawn.Therefore, the requirements under which his previous fixed-term residence permit had been issued were no longer met.While X's appeal was pending, he had married a Finnish citizen and they had a child.X's paternity had been established but he was not the child's quardian.Residence permit on the basis of family ties had to be applied separately.A residence permit may also be refused if the applicant is considered a danger to public order or security. X had been found guilty of several sexual offences, among them aggravated child sexual abuse, and he had been convicted to imprisonment for two years and two months.All his offences had been committed against the personal integrity of another individual.Through his behaviour X had shown that he is liable to endanger other people's safety.There were thus valid grounds for his deportation.The fact that X had left his home country at an early age (he was less than 10 years old at the time) spoke against his deportation.However, he was nearly 18 years old and an adult when he came to Finland.X's mother and most of his siblings lived in Finland.However, this was not decisive, because X was already an adult.X's sister and her family lived in Afghanistan.X's marriage to a Finnish citizen and the establishment of his paternity took place when his appeal was already pending.The child was not in his care and it had not been shown that he would in fact have any real contact with the child.X was not at work but lived on social welfare.He had been accepted as a student at a university of applied sciences, but it had not been shown that he would actually have began his studies.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that under the circumstances X did not have close ties with Finland.In the overall consideration of the deportation decision, the reasons speaking for deportation weighed more heavily than those against it.The Supreme Administrative Court quasted the decision of the administrative court and upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. 18.3.2016 / 18.3.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|