Date when decision was rendered: 16.1.1997

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 01713/96/108

Reference to source

Registry of the Insurance Court

Försäkringsdomstolens registratorskontor

Vakuutusoikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of religion, unemployment, muslims,
religionsfrihet, arbetslöshet, muslimer,
uskonnonvapaus, työttömyys, muslimit,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 20-1 of the Act on Labour Market Subsidies; section 9-1 of the Unemployment Security Act

= lag om arbetsmarknadsstöd 20 § 1 mom.; lag om utkomstskydd för arbetslösa 9 § 1 mom.

= laki työmarkkinatuesta 20 § 1 mom.; työttömyysturvalaki 9 § 1 mom.

ECHR-9

Abstract

A, who was a Muslim woman, had been interviewed for a job.During the interview she had told that she was a Muslim and because of her religion would cover her head with a scarf.She was interested in getting the job and had even offered to work on probation.Yet she did not get the job.The Unemployment Appeal Board rejected her right to receive, for a certain period of time, a certain form of unemployment benefit.The decision was based on the fact that she had without an adequate cause refused to take the job.A appealed to the Insurance Court.The Insurance Court referred to national legislation concerning unemployment benefits and to Article 9 of the ECHR and stated that A had a right to practice her religion and that Muslim women in general cover their heads with a scarf.It was not on account of her own behaviour that she was not employed.Therefore, she had the right to receive the benefit.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.5.2016

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

Reference: Report no. 3186/1/14; 2339

Reference to source

KHO 2016:81.

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, asylum, inhuman treatment or punishment, freedom of religion, muslims, refusal of entry,
utlänningar, asyl, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning, religionsfrihet, muslimer, avvisning,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus, uskonnonvapaus, muslimit, käännyttäminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87, 88, 88a and 88b of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 87 §, 88 §, 88a § och 88b §

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 §, 88 §, 88a § ja 88b §.

ECHR-2, ECHR-3

Abstract

The Immigration Service had rejected X's application for asylum in Finland and had ordered that X is deported to his home country Iran.In his original asylum application X had not invoked his religious affiliation as a ground for asylum, but had mainly referred to matters pertaining to his next of kin.However, in his appeal to the administrative court, X told he had abandoned Islam.The administrative court rejected X's request for an oral hearing and upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.The court found it unlikely that X's abandonment of Islam would have come to the knowledge of the Iranian authorities or that the authorities would be particularly interested in him after his return to Iran.In the court's view, X was not in need for international protection.In his appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court X further told that he had converted to Christianity.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of F.G. v Sweden (23 March 2016), which concerned the refusal of asylum to an Iranian national converted to Christianity as well as the duty of national authorities to assess the applicant's conversion, the seriousness of his beliefs and the way he manifested his Christian faith.The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the human rights court had used, among other sources, the country of origin report on Iran by the UK Home Office from September 2013, particularly concerning apostasy.

The Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that although X had not told the administrative court about his conversion to Christianity, he had told he had abandoned Islam.According to current country information on Iran, apostasy from Islam may result in persecution, inhuman treatment or even the death penalty.Therefore, the possibility cannot be excluded that apostasy from Islam could cause a need for international protection as prescribed in the Aliens Act.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the administrative court should not have decided the case without a thorough assessment of the facts pertaining to X's apostasy and the general situation in Iran.It quashed the decisions of the Immigration Service and the administrative court and returned the case to the Immigration Service for a new consideration, in which the Immigration Service should take into account the new circumstances and the new evidence presented in the case.

6.6.2016 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI