Date when decision was rendered: 4.3.1992

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

Reference: Report No. 758; 492/7/92

Reference to source

KHO 1992-A-59.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1992 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1992 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1992 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1993

Pages: pp. 199-202

Subject

respect for family life, deportation, criminal charge,
respekt för familjeliv, utvisning, brottsanklagelse,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, karkottaminen, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 40-1-3, 41, 42, 43-1 of the Aliens' Act

= utlänningslag 40 § 1 mom. 3 punkten, 41 §, 42 §, 43 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 40 § 1 mom. 3 kohta, 41 §, 42 §, 43 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8-2, ECHR-12

Abstract

As a person had committed several rather serious crimes in Finland, Article 8-2 of the ECHR authorized his expulsion even if he had a spouse and a child in the country.

The foreigner X had been sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and 15 days for having committed several crimes in Finland, including rape, assault and aggravated assault.X was engaged to a Finn, had a child together with another Finn and studied at a Finnish university.The Ministry of the Interior, basing its decision on the provisions of the Aliens' Act, had decided to expel X at the time he was released from prison and to prohibit him from entering Finland for 2 years.In his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, X invoked Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR, as well as the Berrehab judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (judgement of 21 June 1988, Series A, No. 138).Later on, he informed the Court of having married a Finn.In its judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Ministry had had sufficient grounds to decide to expel X when he was released from prison.For this reason the Court, taking also into account Article 8-2 of the ECHR, dismissed the appeal.

24.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.12.1992

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

Reference: Report No. 4813, 5819/7/92

Reference to source

KHO 1992-A-63.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1992, A General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1992, A allmänna delen

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1992, A yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1993

Pages: pp. 207-209

Subject

respect for family life, deportation, rights of the child,
respekt för familjeliv, utvisning, barnets rättigheter,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, karkottaminen, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1-3 and 41-1 of the Aliens' Act

= utlänningslag 1 § 3 mom., 41 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 § 3 mom., 41 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

Article 8 of the ECHR was cited in a judgment overruling the decision of the Ministry of the Interior to expel an Estonian family who was residing in Finland without a visa or a residence permit.

The Estonian family had come to Finland, invited by an organisation that had established a temporary school for children from the Chernobyl area.In April 1991, the family requested asylum and residence permits in Finland.Neither application was granted.The Ministry of the Interior decided to expel them.The father of the family had found a company willing to employ him, the family had been set up in an apartment and both children went to school.The family members could speak Finnish.The younger child had a chronic illness, and his health had clearly improved during the stay as he had received proper treatment in Finland.According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the family was staying in Finland without a visa or a residence permit.After referring to their rather lengthy stay in the country, their circumstances, and their connections to Finnish society, the Court took the position that there was not sufficient reason to expel the family, taking into account relevant provisions of the Aliens' Act and Article 8 of the ECHR.The decision of the Ministry was overruled.

25.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.6.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 2410; 6830/92

Reference to source

KHO 1993-A-26.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1993 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1993 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1993 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 84-91

Subject

respect for private life, deportation, inhuman treatment or punishment, homosexuality,
respekt för privatliv, utvisning, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning, homosexualitet,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, karkottaminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus, homoseksuaalisuus,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1-3, 40-1, 41-1 of the Aliens' Act

= utlänningslag 1 § 3 mom., 40 § 1 mom., 41 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 § 3 mom., 40 § 1 mom., 41 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8, ECHR-3

Abstract

The Ministry of the Interior had decided to expel a Russian person, G, on the grounds that he was staying in Finland without a visa or a residence permit.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision with the following reasoning: The fact that G was staying in Finland without a visa or residence permit formed a lawful basis for expulsion according to the Aliens' Act.G was homosexual.On the basis of available information it could not be excluded that G would face inhuman or degrading treatment in his home country.When deciding on G's expulsion, his ties to Finnish society had to be taken into account.G had become a member of the Orthodox Church, he did voluntary work at the AIDS Support Centre and he had started to study Finnish.Taking into account also his cohabitation with a Finn of the same sex and their right to respect for private life, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded, on the basis of sections 1-3 and 41-1 of the Aliens' Act and Articles 8 and 3 of the ECHR, that there was not sufficient reason to expel G.(A vote 3-2)

26.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 10.2.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 419; 4149/7/92

Reference to source

KHO 1993-A-29.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1993 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1993 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1993 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 96-99

Subject

respect for family life, deportation, children, health care, rights of the child,
respekt för familjeliv, utvisning, barn, hälsovård, barnets rättigheter,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, karkottaminen, lapset, terveydenhoito, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1-3 and 41-1 of the Aliens' Act

= utlänningslag 1 § 3 mom., 41 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 § 3 mom., 41 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The expulsion order concerning an Estonian family with several ties to Finnish society, and with a sick child enjoying a proper diet in Finland, was quashed.The Ministry of the Interior had decided to expel the family because they were staying in Finland without a visa or a residence permit.Taking into account the various ties of the family members to Finland and the provisions in Article 8 of the ECHR, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that there did not exist sufficient reason to expel the persons in question.(A vote 4-1)

26.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 6.10.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 3770; 584/7/93

Reference to source

KHO 1993-A-27.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1993 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1993 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1993 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 91-93

Subject

respect for family life, deportation, children, rights of the child,
respekt för familjeliv, utvisning, barn, barnets rättigheter,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, karkottaminen, lapset, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 6-1-3 of the Act on Extraordinary Appeal in Administrative Matters

= lag om extraordinärt ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 6 § 1 mom. 3 punkten

= laki ylimääräisestä muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa 6 § 1 mom. 3 kohta

Abstract

The Supreme Administrative Court granted an extraordinary remedy by annulling its own earlier decision that had upheld the expulsion order of a Romanian family.The birth of a new family member who was not personally mentioned in the expulsion order was regarded as a new fact that could affect the outcome of the case, taking into account Finland's commitments to protect the unity of the family, to respect family life and to consider the best interests of the child, expressed in international treaties binding on Finland.In spite of the fact that the expulsion order had already been implemented, the order was annulled and the expulsion case returned to the Ministry of the Interior.(A vote 4-1)

26.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 6.10.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 3769; 1492/7/93

Reference to source

KHO 1993-A-28.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1993 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1993 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1993 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 93-96

Subject

deportation, children, respect for family life, rights of the child,
utvisning, barn, respekt för familjeliv, barnets rättigheter,
karkottaminen, lapset, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 6-1-3 of the Act on Extraordinary Appeal in Administrative Matters

= lag om extraordinärt ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 6 § 1 mom. 3 punkten

= laki ylimääräisestä muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa 6 § 1 mom. 3 kohta

Abstract

The Supreme Administrative Court granted an extraordinary remedy by annulling its own earlier decision that had upheld the expulsion order of a Russian family.The birth of a new family member who was not personally mentioned in the expulsion order was regarded as a new fact that could affect the outcome of the case, taking into account Finland's commitments to protect the unity of the family, to respect family life and to consider the best interests of the child, expressed in international treaties binding on Finland.The expulsion case was returned to the Ministry of the Interior.(A vote 4-1)

26.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 7.9.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 3234; 2248/7/93

Reference to source

Electronic database FKHO within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FKHO inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FKHO-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

deportation, respect for family life, criminal charge, marriage,
utvisning, respekt för familjeliv, brottsanklagelse, äktenskap,
karkottaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, rikossyyte, avioliitto,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1, 40-1-3, 40-1-4 and 43-1 of the Aliens' Act

= utlänningslag 1 §, 40 § 1 mom. 3 och 4 punkten, 43 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 §, 40 § 1 mom. 3 ja 4 kohta, 43 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the expulsion order of a person who had committed serious crimes and had thereafter married a Finn.A foreigner A had been sentenced to imprisonment because of continued rape and attempted rape.Taking into account the nature of the crimes, A could be considered to have shown through his own behaviour that he was a threat to the security of others.The fact that A had married a Finn after the expulsion decision by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs did not preclude his expulsion.

27.3.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.9.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 2389; 1135 and 1136/3/97

Reference to source

KHO 1997:96.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1997 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1997 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1997 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 137-140

Subject

aliens, children, deportation, rights of the child,
utlänningar, barn, utvisning, barnets rättigheter,
ulkomaalaiset, lapset, karkottaminen, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 41-1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 41 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 41 § 1 mom.

CRC-3-1

Abstract

A, who was an alien, had obtained a temporary residence permit in order to study at a university.Later his wife and his two minor children, who were also foreign citizens, had followed him to Finland and were granted temporary residence permits.As A did not make much progress in his studies, the residence permits of A and his family were not renewed.A and his family resided in the country without the required residence permit.The Directorate of Immigration gave an expulsion decision.A lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the family had lived in Finland for over six years and had during that time adapted themselves to Finnish society and way of life.The elder child went to Finnish elementary school, the younger child was at a day-care centre.The children had no ties to their country of origin.The family members spoke Finnish and they had relatives in Finland.A and his wife had a business of their own and thus their income was at least partially secured.A had expressed an interest in the continuation of his studies.Taking into account the best interest of the children and considering the circumstances of the family as a whole, there was no adequate cause to expel the family.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Directorate of Immigration.In its decision the Court referred to Article 3-1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

2.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 6.4.1998

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

Reference: Report No. 603; 206/3/98

Reference to source

Electronic database FKHO within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FKHO inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FKHO-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for family life, deportation, criminal charge,
respekt för familjeliv, utvisning, brottsanklagelse,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, karkottaminen, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 40 §, 41 §, 42 §, 43 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 40 §, 41 §, 42 §, 43 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

X had arrived to Finland from Russia with his family in 1991 when he was 13 years old.His mother was married to a Russian man of Finnish origin, and he lived with his parents and had no close relatives in Russia.He had a good knowledge of the Finnish language and studied in the country.He had received a permanent residence status on 25 June 1996.

The Directorate of Immigartion, basing its decision on the provisions of the Aliens' Act, had decided to expel X due to a serious drug offence.X appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.In quashing the decision, the Court referred to the preparatory work of section 43 of the Aliens' Act which deals with expulsion.The preparatory work states that expulsion of persons who have received a permanent residence permit should take place only for very weighty reasons.In addition, if an alien is born in Finland and has lived here all his life or is of Finnish origin, expulsion will hardly come into question.After weighing X's connection to Finland and the length of his residence in the country, against the grounds speaking for an expulsion or the criminal charges a gainst him, the Court found that the reasons speaking against an expulsion were to be accorded more weight.

In its decision, the Directorate of Immigration also referred to Article 8 of the ECHR.It noted that X had attained the age of majority and was not in any way dependent on his parents.His expulsion would not violate Article 8 of the ECHR, taking also into account that drug offences constituted a danger to public safety and limitations of the right to family life were thus justified.The Supreme Administrative Court did not refer to the ECHR.

20.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

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,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, deporterade personer, utvisning, rättsskydd,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, karkottaminen, oikeusturva,

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

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,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, deporterade personer, utvisning,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, karkottaminen,

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

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,
respekt för familjeliv, asyl, deporterade personer, utvisning,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, turvapaikka, karkotetut henkilöt, karkottaminen,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 11.11.2016

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

Reference: Report no. 909/4/16; 4763

Reference to source

KHO 2016:174.

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 justitietiministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, sexual orientation, homosexuality, deportation,
utlänningar, asyl, sexuell orientering, homosexualitet, utvisning,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, seksuaalinen suuntautuminen, homoseksuaalisuus, karkottaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87, 88, 88a and 95 of the Aliens Act; section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 87 §, 88 §, 88a § och 95 §; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar och personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidärt skyddsbehövande, och för innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 4

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 §, 88 §, 88a § ja 95 §; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojelun sisällölle artikla 4.

ECHR-3; ECHR-8; Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X was originally from Tanzania and had arrived in Finland in 2005.He had been issued with a residence permit for studying until July 2010 and thereafter a new residence permit for an employed person until May 2012.He then applied for an extended permit, twice as an employed person and then as a student.The applications were rejected.In April 2014, the Immigration Service decided that X is deported to Tanzania.The administrative court dismissed X's appeal because it had not been submitted within prescribed time.X then applied for asylum, claiming that if returned to Tanzania, he would be subjected to persecution because of his sexual orientation as a gay man.

The Immigration Service rejected the asylum application.It found, e.g., that there were inconsistencies in X's account of his alleged persecution and that the credibility of his account was further diminished by the fact that he had invoked sexual orientation only after he had been denied an extended residence permit and was facing deportation.The administrative court rejected X's appeal.The court did not as such doubt that X was a homosexual, but noted that X had not manifested his sexual orientation in public in Tanzania nor in Finland.The court concluded that, having spent several years abroad, X had no well-founded cause to fear that he would be subjected to repeated violations of rights or serious harm in his home country.X appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the fact that X had declared his sexual orientation only when he was facing deportation was not of importance when assessing the credibility of his statements.His previous applications for a residence permit as a student or an employed person had not required that he should have disclosed his sexual orientation.The court concluded that X had had reasonable grounds to file his application for asylum only after several years of residence in Finland.

With reference to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the joined cases X et al.C-199/12 to C-201/12 (7 November 2013), the Supreme Administrative Court noted that a person's sexual orientation is a characteristic so fundamental to his identity that he should not be forced to renounce it.An applicant for asylum cannot be expected to conceal his homosexuality in his country of origin in order to avoid persecution.It is also not reasonable to expect that the person should exercise restraint in expressing his sexual orientation.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the administrative court could not base its assessment of the need for protection on the fact that X had not been open about his sexual orientation.Instead, the decision should have been based on an overall assessment of the situation in Tanzania as well as X's personal circumstances.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that sexual minorities in Tanzania were at risk of being subjected to discrimination.While sexual acts between same-sex couples are illegal in Tanzania, the law is rarely applied.Also, the criminalisation of homosexual acts alone does not, in itself, constitute persecution.The court recalled that after his alleged arrest as a homosexual in 1993 X had stayed in Tanzania until 2001 when he had left the country in order to study in Malesia.The court found that there were inconsistencies in X's original statements which he had not been able to clarify during the appeal process.Despite more specific questions presented to X during his asylum interview, his account lacked details suggesting personal experience.Based on an overall assessment of the relevant country information and X's personal circumstances, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that X had no well-founded fear of being subjected to persecution or serious harm if returned to Tanzania.His appeal was rejected.

2.3.2017 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 20.5.2016

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

Reference: Reports no. 3108/1/14 and 3109/1/14; 2234

Reference to source

KHO 2016:75.

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, respect for family life, children, best interests of the child, citizenship (EU), deportation, social assistance,
utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, respekt för familjeliv, barn, barnets bästa, medborgarskap (EU), utvisning, socialhjälp,
ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, lapset, lapsen etu, kansalaisuus (EU), karkottaminen, sosiaaliapu,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 6(1), 158a(1), 160, 161f(2), 161g(1), 168(1), 168(4) and 168b of the Aliens Act; Articles 6, 7, 14, 16 and 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

= utlänningslag 6 § 1 mom., 158a § 1 mom., 160 §, 161f § 2 mom., 161g § 1 mom., 168 § 1 och 4 mom., 168a § och 168b §; Europaparlamentets or rådets direktiv 2004/38/EG om unionsmedborgares och deras familjemedlemmars rätt att fritt röra sig och uppehålla sig inom medlemsstaternas territorier artikel 6, 7, 14, 16 och 28; Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt artikel 20

= ulkomaalaislaki 6 § 1 mom., 158a § 1 mom., 160 §, 161f § 2 mom., 161g § 2 mom., 168 § 1 ja 4 mom., 168a § ja 168b §; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2004/38/EY Euroopan unionin kansalaisten ja heidän perheenjäsentensä oikeudesta liikkua ja oleskella vapaasti jäsenvaltion alueella artikla 6, 7, 14, 16 ja 28; Sopimus Euroopan unionin toiminnasta artikla 20.

ECHR-8; CRC-3-1; Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

A and B and their four minor children, who were all German citizens, had arrived in Finland in March 2011.The couple and one of their children had registered their right of residence in Finland.At the start A had worked but her employer had not continued the employment contract after a trial period of two months.Since July 2011 A been unable to work as a result of health problems.B had been unemployed during the whole period of his residence in Finland.Both A and B had said they were taking Open University courses.However, studying was not the main purpose of their stay in Finland and the courses were not related to their previous employment.Since June 2011 the family had resorted to various social benefits, including social assistance which is the last-resort form of income security.The main issue in this case was whether the couple and their children could be deported to Germany, considering that they were all EU citizens.The Supreme Administrative Court based its decision on the Aliens Act, taking also into account the Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, the right to free movement of EU citizens under the TFEU, the case law of the CJEU (C-456/02 Trojani; C-408/03 Commission v Belgium; C-140/12 Brey; C-333/13 Dano; C-67/14 Alimanovic) and also the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Rodriguez da Silva and Hoogkamer v the Netherlands, judgment of 31 January 2006; and Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 April 2007).

The Supreme Administrative Court first considered the applicants' status and whether that status prevented their deportation unless it was on grounds of public order or security or public health.The court noted that the applicants were not employed or self-employed persons, or persons seeking employment in Finland.After her short employment A had not retained her status as an employed person, because her incapacity to work was not temporary, she had not become unemployed involuntarily and the Open University courses she had taken were not relating to vocational training.Neither A nor B had shown they would have a genuine chance of being employed.By the time the Immigration Service made the decision on deportation in 2013, neither applicant had gained the right of permanent residence and neither had resided in Finland legally for the previous 10 years.Consequently, deportation was possible also on other grounds than public order or security or public health.

According to the Aliens Act, EU citizens and their family members may be deported if they fail to meet the requirements for the right to residence laid down in the Aliens Act or if they are considered a danger to public order or security or to public health.It is required in the Aliens Act that economically inactive EU citizens who wish to reside in Finland for more than three months shall have for themselves and their family members sufficient funds, and, if necessary, health insurance so that, during their time of residence, they do not become a burden on Finland's social security system by resorting repeatedly to social assistance or other comparable benefits.The court also noted that in the case of Konstatinov v the Netherlands, the European Court of Human Rights had not considered unreasonable a requirement that an alien having achieved a settled status in a host state and who seeks family reunion there must demonstrate that he/she has sufficient independent and lasting income, not being welfare benefits, to provide for the basic costs of subsistence of his or her family members with whom reunion is sought.

In this case, the family had resorted to social assistance immediately after their arrival in Finland and had continued to do so on a regular basis.This was not a case of temporary difficulties.It had not been established that the couple would have had any other income than A's salary for two monts' work in 2011.The court concluded that the applicants could be considered to be a burden on the social assistance system, as prescribed in the Aliens Act.It is overall consideration of the case the court also took into account the duration of the applicants' residence in Finland, their age, state of health, family situation, their integration in the country and the best interests of the child.The court concluded that the arguments for deportation weighed more than those against.It upheld the decision on deportation made by the Immigration Service.

3.5.2017 / 3.5.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 14.7.2017

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

Reference: Report no. 3758/4/16; 3539

Reference to source

KHO 2017:121.

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, deportation, domestic violence, honour killing,
utlänningar, utvisning, familjevåld, hedersmord,
ulkomaalaiset, karkottaminen, perheväkivalta, kunniamurha,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 146, 147, 147a(1), 149(1)(2), 150(1), 150(2), 150(3) of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 146 §, 147 §, 147a § 1 mom., 149 § 1 mom. 2 punkten, 150 § 1-3 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 146 §, 147 §, 147a § 1 mom., 149 § 1 mom. 2 kohta, 150 § 1-3 mom.

Abstract

X, his mother and sister had come to Finland from Iraq in 2010 to join X's father who had been granted residence permit in Finland on humanitarian grounds.At the time, X was 16 years old.X's father had returned to Iraq in 2012.In June 2015, the court of first instance had convicted X for assault against his sister and for preparation of an aggravated offence against her life or health.X was sentenced to two years and one month in prison.On X's appeal, in January 2016, the court of appeal amended the judgment of the lower court and convicted X for assault to a conditional prison sentence for six months.The court found that although X had threatened and assaulted his sister, it had not been sufficiently shown that X would have had a detailed plan for killing her and that he would have been ready to carry out such a plan, and that his acts would thus have fallen within the definition of preparation of an aggravated offence against life or health as prescribed in the Criminal Code.The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal (KKO 2017:52, 5 July 2017).

In March 2016, the Finnish Immigration Service made a decision by which X was deported to Iraq and was also banned from entering the Schengen area for three years.Both the administrative court and the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision.The grounds for deportation under the Aliens Act existed, because X had been found guilty of an offence which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a year or more.The main issue in this case before the Supreme Administrative Court was the requirement in the Aliens Act of an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances affecting the matter as a whole.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court took into account also the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the cases of Uner v the Netherlands (judgment of 18 October 2006), Boultif v Switzerland (2 August 2001), Emre v Switzerland (22 May 2008) and Maslov v Austria (23 June 2008) all pertaining to deportation of aliens.The court noted that X had lived most of his life in Iraq where his father is currently residing.X was an adult and, following the definition of family members in the Aliens Act, had no family in Finland.His circumstances thus needed to be considered in the light of the protection of private life (rather than the right to family life).The right to private life may be subject to limitations which are prescribed by law and are necessary, e.g., for the protection of national security and public safety or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

In the criminal case, X had told that his sister had not obeyed him and therefore, using physical violence against her was in accordance with their culture.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that, as a party to the Istanbul Convention, Finland is committed to fighting violence against women.The court held that in case of migrants, domestic violence based on the culture and customs of their country of origin is a problem.Violent behaviour on cultural grounds shows disregard for values guaranteed in the Finnish Constitution Act and international treaties binding on Finland.

In its overall consideration of the deportation grounds and X's personal circumstances, the Supreme Administrative Court noted as facts speaking against X's deportation, that X had been fairly young when committing the offence, that he had had a Finnish girlfriend for the past three years and that he had in August 2016 commenced vocational education in Finland.However, the court held that the nature of the offence had more weight than the facts against deportation.The court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.It also found that X's deportation to Iraq was not in violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, as prescribed in the Aliens Act and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the ECHR.

30.1.2018 / 30.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 9.8.2018

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

Reference: Report no. 5026/4/17; 3712

Reference to source

KHO 2018:109.

Electronic database for the decision 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, deportation, oral hearing,
utlänning, utvisning, muntligt förfarande,
ulkomaalaiset, karkottaminen, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

section 5 of the Aliens Act; sections 31, 44 and 45 of the Administrative Procedure Act; sections 33, 34 and 38 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; sections 11-2 and 24-1-9 of the Act on the Openness of GOvernment Activities; sections 8, 9 and 18 of the Act on the Publicity of Administrative Court Proceedings; sections 12-2 and 21-2 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 5 §; förvaltningslag 31 §, 44 § och 45 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 34 § och 38 §; lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 11 § 2 mom. och 24 § 1 mom. 9 punkten; lag om offentlighet vid rättegång i förvaltningsdomstolar 8 §, 9 § och 18 §; grundlagen 12 § 2 mom. och 21 § 2 mom.

= ulkomsslsidlski 5 §; hallintolaki 31 §, 44 § ja 45 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 34 § ja 38 §; laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 11 § 2 mom. ja 24 § 1 mom. 9 kohta; laki oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta hallintotuomioistuimissa 8 §, 9 § ja 18 §; perustuslkai 12 § 2 mom. ja 21 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-1; ECHR-8; ECHR-13; ECHRP-7-1

Abstract

X was a Turkish citizen with a permanent residence permit in Finland.In 2012, X was sentenced to eight years and six months of imprisonment in Sweden for attempted murder.He was transferred to Finland to serve his sentence.Having received a statement from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (Supo), the Finnish Immigration Service decided in 2016 that X is to be deported to Turkey, because there were grounds to suspect that he may engage in activities that endanger Finland's national security.X appealed to the administrative court, which upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.The court heard Supo's representative in closed proceedings concerning the grounds for Supo's statement.The court held that because of a very important public interest, Supo's statement and the facts upon which it was based could not be disclosed, and even in his position as a party to the case, X could not be granted access to these documents.The court denied X's request for an oral hearing as being manifestly unnecessary, within the meaning of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.Instead, X was given the possibility to submit additional documentary evidence.

The key question before the Supreme Administrative Court was whether X's request for an oral hearing and access to Supo's statement could be rejected by the administrative court.In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., the case of Regner v the Czech Republic, 19 September 2017; Kaushal et al. v Bulgaria, 2 September 2010; and Ljatifi v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 17 May 2018).It also referred to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (4 June 2013).Based on this case law review, the Supreme Administrative Court noted, e.g., that a court should strike a fair balance between individual rights and the interests of public order and safety.It must carry out an independent examination of all the facts the authorities have relied on when claiming that public order and public safety are at stake.In order to ensure compliance with the adversarial principle, the individual must be able to challenge the authorities' assertion.If a party in the case cannot be granted access to all trial materials, any negative effects of that limitation of the right of access should be minimized in the court proceedings.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the administrative court had not heard X in connection with the hearing of Supo or thereafter.The possibility to submit additional documentary evidence could not be regarded as a measure which would guarantee adversarial proceedings, particularly, when X was lacking even ouline knowledge of the contets of Supo's statement.The administrative court had briefly reviewed parties' right of access to documents in the Immigration Service proceedings, but had not assessed X's procedural rights at the appeals stage.In its decision, the administrative court did not discuss the right to an effetive remedy, as provided for in Article 13 of the ECHR.It had not taken into account that when the decision on X's deportation was made, he was lawfully residing in Finland and the procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens, provided for in Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR, were thus applicable.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that although the administrative court had found that all information submitted by Supo in the case was confidential snd not accessible to X even as a party to the case, it should, nevertheless, have provided X with the right to be heard and the right to have examined witnesses, at least those which he had himself presented.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the administrative court had a duty to try to diminish any negative effects of the limitation of a party's right of access to trial documents.To that end, a written hearing had not been sufficient in this case, and a written hearing alone had not given X an adequate opportunity to submit reasons against his deportation.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that X's oral hearing could not be considered manifestly unnecessary, particularly when taking into account the procedural rights guaranteed in Article 13 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the administrative court and referred the matter back to the lower court, for a new oral hearing in which X has the opportunity to be heard and to have examined at least his own witnesses.It also ordered the administrative court to consider the facts upon which Supo's statment was based and to make an independent assessment as to whether these facts can to some degree be disclosed to X as a party to the case, taking particularly into account X's procedural rights.

23.10.2023 / 25.10.2023 / RHANSKI