Date when decision was rendered: 27.1.2004

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 176; R2003/300

Reference to source

KKO 2004:7.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2004 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2004 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2004 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2004

Pages: 37-42

Subject

right to liberty, security of person, appeal, deprivation of liberty, lawful detention,
rätt till frihet, personlig säkerhet, ändringssökande, frihetsberövande, laglig anhållande,
oikeus vapauteen, henkilökohtainen turvallisuus, muutoksenhaku, vapaudenriisto, laillinen pidätys,

Relevant legal provisions

section 60 of the Aliens Act; section 21-2 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 60 §; grundlagen 21 § 2 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 60 §; perustuslaki 21 § 2 mom.

ECHR-5

Abstract

A had been detained on the basis of the Aliens Act.The court of first instance had twice decided to continue A's detention.Section 60 of the Aliens Act (378/1991) prescribed that, with a few exceptions, decisions made under the Act were not subject to appeal.The exceptions did not include a decision on detention made by a court of first instance.However, extraordinary appeal under the Code of Judicial Procedure was possible in the form of a complaint on the basis of a grave procedural error.In A's case the question was whether it was possible to file a complaint on the grounds that there were no reasons for the detention as prescribed by law.The Supreme Court first recalled the amendments made to the previous Aliens Act (400/1983) in order for national legislation to correspond to the ECHR and its provisions concerning deprivations of liberty.In 1990, a provision was added to the Aliens Act according to which it was possible for a detained person to file a complaint against a decision concerning his or her detention in order for a higher court to review the reasons for detention.Such a provision was not included in the later Aliens Act (378/1991) which was in force when A's case was pending.However, the Supreme Court referred to the Government Bill to the Aliens Act, according to which previous amendments required by the ECHR were included in the proposed Act.It was not explicitly said in the Government Bill that the drafters intended to leave out the possibility of complaint from the new Act.Furthermore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it was possible to interpret the restrictions to the right of appeal in section 60 of the Aliens Act to the effect that they only applied to decisions made by administrative authorities and administrative courts and not to decisions by general courts.The Court ruled that section 60 did not prevent the possibility of appeal against the decision on detention made by a court of first instance: the question was left open in the Act.The Supreme Court then referred to section 21-2 of the Constitution Act concerning the right of appeal and to the fact that detention constituted serious interference with the liberty and security of a person.The Aliens Act did not prescribe any maximum duration for the time in detention.A court of first instance had a duty to reconsider its decision on detention at two-week intervals.In the Supreme Court's opinion this did not correspond to a possibility to have a decision reviewed by a higher court.Therefore, in the Court's view, it was reasonable that a detained person should have a right to have the grounds for his or her detention reviewed by a higher court.The Court then referred to legislation concerning general courts and pointed out that the need for swift legal safeguards in cases concerning personal liberty was taken care of by means of a right of filing a complaint.No time limit was prescribed for filing such a complaint.The Supreme Court ruled that also in the case of the Aliens Act it was possible to file a complaint against the decision on detention made by a court of first instance on the grounds that there were no reasons for the detention as prescribed by law.The court of appeal had rejected A's complaint as it was not made on the basis of a grave procedural error.One justice of the court dissented.His reasoning corresponded to that of the Supreme Court.

22.4.2005 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.3.2006

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

Reference: Report no. 638; 2777/1/05

Reference to source

KHO 2006:12.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 309-327

Subject

fair trial, appeal, right to be heard,
rättvis rättegång, ändringssökande, rätt att höras,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, muutoksenhaku, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

section 191-3 of the Land Use and Building Act; sections 33, 34-1 and 63-1-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act

= markanvändnings- och bygglag 191 § 3 mom.; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 34 § 1 mom. och 63 § 1 mom. 1 punkten; grundlagen 21 §

= maankäyttö- ja rakennuslaki 191 § 3 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 34 § 1 mom. ja 63 § 1 mom. 1 kohta; perustuslaki 21 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

A city council had approved a local master plan drawn up to guide land use in a specified area.In the master plan, an area in the estate owned by A and B had been indicated as a residential area of single-family houses.On appeal of certain other landowners, the administrative court revoked the city council's decision as far as the residential area of single-family houses in A's and B's estate was concerned.A and B appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court which dismissed the appeal on the ground that, according to the Land Use and Building Act, only local authorities are entitled to appeal a decision of the administrative court revoking the local authority's decision to approve a land use plan.It is held that land use planning is at the discretion of the local authorities, and a private landowner has no right to request a local plan with a specific content.The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court to dismiss the appeal was made by a vote (6-2).Two members of the Court held that, considering the provisions on equality and protection under the law in the Constitution Act as well as Article 6 of the ECHR, the Land Use and Building Act should be interpreted expansively so as to grant A and B the right of appeal.

However, having dismissed the appeal the Supreme Administrative Court considered the claim as an extraordinary appeal and an application for the annulment of a decision due to a procedural error.The Court held that the possibilities to use the land in the estate owned by A and B for building had been changed substantially by the decision of the administrative court.The decision was therefore of particular significance to the estate owners A and B, whose views had not been heard by the court and who were not entitled to appeal against the court's decision considering the provisions of the Land Use and Building Act.The Supreme Administrative Court referred to the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act and the duty of the appellate authority to review a matter and to obtain evidence at its own initiative in so far as the impartiality and fairness of the procedure and the nature of the case so require.It also referred to the preparatory works of the Act in which it is held, among other things, that in obtaining evidence the appellate authority should pay particular attention to a fair administration of justice, using Article 6 of the ECHR and the case law under that article as guidelines to what is meant by a fair procedure.With reference to the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act the Court concluded that, by revoking a part of the local master plan without giving the estate owners A and B the opportunity to be heard, the administrative court had committed a procedural error which may have had a relevant effect on the decision.The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision of the administrative court as far as it was concerning the land area in the estate owned by A and B and referred the matter back to the lower court for a new consideration.

10.4.2007 / 8.9.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 5.7.2006

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

Reference: Report no. 1717; 288/3/05

Reference to source

KHO 2006:43.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: pp. 47-56

Subject

appeal, access to court, non-discrimination, respect for private life, integrity, drugs,
ändringssökande, rätt till domstolsprövning, icke-diskriminering, respekt för privatliv, integritet, narkotika,
muutoksenhaku, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, syrjintäkielto, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, koskemattomuus, huumeet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 28-1-7, 34-1 and 34-2-4 of the Administrative Procedure Act; section 6-2 of the Act on the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs; sections 25-1, 25-2, 25-5, 29, 38-1 and 39 of the Act on Health Care Professionals; sections 7-1 and 18-1 of the Constitution Act

= förvaltningslag 28 § 1 mom. 7 punkten, 34 § 1 mom och 2 mom. 4 punkten; lag om rättsskyddscentralen för hälsovården 6 § 2 mom.; lag om yrkesutbildade personer inom hälso- och sjukvården 25 § 1, 2 och 5 mom., 29 §, 38 § 1 mom. och 39 §; grundlagen 7 § 1 mom. och 18 § 1 mom.

= hallintolaki 28 § 1 mom. 7 kohta, 34 § 1 mom. ja 2 mom. 4 kohta; laki terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskuksesta 6 § 2 mom.; laki terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä 25 § 1, 2 ja 5 mom., 29 §, 38 § 1 mom. ja 39 §; perustuslaki 7 § 1 mom. ja 18 § 1 mom.

ECHR-5; ECHR-6; ECHR-8

Abstract

The National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs, responsible for the supervision of health care professionals, found that it had good reason to presume that A, who was a foreign national and a physician licensed to practice his profession in Finland, was no longer capable of practicing his profession, owing to reduced functional capacity and possible drug addiction.Based on the Act on Health Care Professionals, the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs ordered A to submit a medical report concerning his health and his ability to work and imposed on A a temporary prohibition to practice his profession.It also held that appeal against the decision was not possible, because this was concerning a preparatory measure and not a final decision by which the issue would have been resolved or dismissed.Nevertheless, A appealed against the decision, to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that this was an administrative decision directly concerning his rights and obligations.He argued that he had a right to appeal on the basis of the Act on Health Care Professionals as well as on the basis of section 21 of the Constitution Act (protection under the law and access to court) and Article 6 of the ECHR.He also claimed that the decision amounted to discrimination and did not honour his right to privacy and personal liberty, protected under the Constitution Act and the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the decision was appealable, because the possibility of appeal was not specifically restricted in the Act on Health Care Professionals.Moreover, the decision affected A's rights, obligations and interests to such an extent that he was entitled to submit the matter to the consideration of a court.Regarding the merits, the Court held, among other things, that the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs had previously issued several similar orders in cases where a physician had been suspected of drug addiction, and therefore the decision concerning A did not amount to discrimination on the basis of nationality.Also, the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs has a right, based on the law, to use the assistance of experts and to submit to the experts information necessary for the performance of their task, confidentiality provisions notwithstanding.It could thus attach to its decision A's medical records and other information for the use of the expert who would assess A's health and ability to work.The decision was also not in violation of A's right to personal liberty, because it had a legitimate aim to guarantee patient security and because it was A's own choice whether he would undergo a medical examination or not.The decision did not mean that A would have been ordered to involuntary treatment.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs had acted in accordance with its powers under the Act on Health Care Professionals.A's appeal was dismissed.

11.4.2007 / 2.12.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.8.2008

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

Reference: Report no. 2053; 1119/3/07

Reference to source

KHO 2008:62.

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

Date of publication: 2011

Pages: pp. 263-266

Subject

aliens, access to court, appeal,
utlänningar, rätt till domstolsprövning, ändringssökande,
ulkomaalaiset, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, muutoksenhaku,

Relevant legal provisions

section 136-5 of the Aliens Act; section 5-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 21-1 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 136 § 5 mom.; förvaltningsprocesslag 5 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 21 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 136 § 5 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 5 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 21 § 1 mom.

Abstract

The Finnish Immigration Service (former Directorate of Immigration) had issued X with an alien's passport in which it had, in accordance with the Aliens Act, made an entry which stated that it had been impossible to verify X's identity.X appealed to the administrative court and asked that the entry is removed.The administrative court ruled the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that the entry on X's unverified identity was not a measure by which a case has been resolved and was thus not subject to appeal as provided in the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.The Supreme Administrative Court granted X leave to appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court quoted section 136-5 of the Aliens Act which provides that if it is impossible to verify the identity of the alien when issuing an alien's passport, an appropriate entry shall be made in the passport.The Court held that such entry is thus prescribed as an inseparable part of the appealable decision by which an alien's passport is issued.The entry on unverified identity is also of significance with regard to X's legal status.Taking into account section 21-1 of the Constitution Act, which prescribes that everyone has the right to have his or her case dealth with by a legally competent court of law or other authority, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that making an entry in the alien's passport on X's unverified identity is an administrative decision which may be challenged by an appeal as provided in the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.The administrative court should thus have declared X's appeal admissible.The case was referred back to the administrative court.

6.7.2009 / 28.3.2011 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.2.2011

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

Reference: Report no. 11/0169/2

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

appeal, right to liberty, integrity, civil servants,
ändringssökande, rätt till frihet, integritet, tjänstemän,
muutoksenhaku, oikeus vapauteen, koskemattomuus, virkamiehet,

Relevant legal provisions

section 19 of the Act on Municipal Office Holders; sections 89, 90 and 91 of the Local Government Act; section 7 of the Constitution Act

= lag om kommunala tjänsteinnehavare 19 §; kommunallag 89 §, 90 § och 91 §; grundlagen 7 §

= laki kunnallisesta viranhaltijasta 19 §; kuntalaki 89 §, 90 § ja 91 §; perustuslaki 7 §

Abstract

The main question in this case was whether ordering a civil servant in a municipality to undergo an assessment of his/her ability to work was a decision against which appeal was allowed or an official order from the employer which according to the Local Government Act was not subject to rectification or appeal.The administrative court found that a civil servant's obligation to attend a medical examination or assessment on the basis of the employer's order under the Act on Municipal Office Holders is an interference in the right to personal liberty and integrity as prescribed in the Constitution Act.In this case, therefore, an order to undergo an assessment of work ability had such an impact on a civil servant's rights and obligations that the civil servant was entitled to have the decision reviewed by an appeal body.Also, the right to appeal against a decision on an assessment of work ability was not expressly restricted in law.The administrative court concluded that the order from a municipal authority for the assessment of a civil servant's work ability was a decision against which appeal was allowed.The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court (report no. 1168 of 29 April 2011).

8.10.2012 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 11.2.2010

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstol = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report no. 1311:2008

Reference to source

Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

pension, appeal, access to court, constitution,
pension, ändringssökande, rätt till domstolsprövning, grundlagen,
eläke, muutoksenhaku, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 128-2 and 129-2 of the Employees' Pensions Act; section 6 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act

= lag om pension for arbetstagare 128 § 2 mom. och 129 § 2 mom; förvaltningsprocesslag 6 §; grundlagen 21 §

= työntekijän eläkelaki 128 § 2 mom. ja 129 § 2 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §; perustuslaki 21 §

Abstract

X had been granted an old-age pension.In the pension application, X had told he had been working both in Finland and in Sweden but was not going to apply for pension in Sweden.X was not satisfied with the amount of the pension and appealed the pension provider's decision to the Employee Pensions Appeal Board.The Appeal Board referred to the Employees' Pensions Act which provides that a party who has been insured in two or more EU countries and who is dissatisfied with the decision issued by the pension provider may appeal the decision after having received the summarised statement containing decisions of all the EU countries, as referred to in Article 48 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72 on the implementation of EC Regulation on social security.The Appeal Board found that without the summarised statement, there is no right of appeal and dismissed X's appeal as premature without considering it.The pension provider appealed the decision of the Appeal Board to the Insurance Court and requested that X's appeal concerning the pension amount is considered in order to safeguard X's legal rights.The Insurance Court noted that X had indicated that he was not going to apply for pension in Sweden, at least not yet.Therefore, X would not at this stage obtain the requested summarised statement.Consequently, if the Appeal Board's decision remained the final decision concerning X's right of appeal, this would jeopardize X's constitutional right to have a decision pertaining to his pension reviewed by a court of law or other independent organ for the administration of justice.The Insurance Court concluded that in order to ensure the protection of X's constitutional rights, it is necessary that the Appeal Board considers at this stage X's claim concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pension, despite the fact that this deviates from the provisions on the regular appeals procedure as provided for in section 129 of the Employees' Pensions Act and the relevant EU regulations on social security.

15.11.2012 / 16.11.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.10.2022

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

Reference: Report no. H3074; 21936/2020

Reference to source

KHO:2022:121.

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, asylum, effective remedy, appeal, best interests of the child, respect for family life,
utlänning, asyl, effektiva rättsmedel, ändringssökande, barnets bästa, respekt för familjeliv,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, tehokas oikeussuojakeino, muutoksenhaku, lapsen etu, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 6-1, 146-1 and 147 of the Aliens Act; section 7-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; preamble paragraphs 22 and 24 and Article 5 of Directive 2008/113/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

= utlänningslag 6 § 1 mom., 146 § 1 mom., 147 §; lag om rättegäng i förvaltningsärenden 7 § 1 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2008/115/EG om gemensamma normer och förfaranden för återvändande av tredjelandsmedborgare som vistas olagligt i medlemsstaterna inledning 22 och 24 § och artikel 5

= ulkomaalaislaki 6 § 1 mom., 146 § 1 mom., 147 §; laki oikeudenkäynnistä hallintoasioissa 7 § 1 mom.; Euroopan parlamenting ja neuvoston direktiivi 2008/115/EY jäsenvaltioissa sovellettavista yhteisistä vaatimuksista ja menettelyistä laittomasti oleskelevien kolmansien maiden kansalaisten palauttamiseksi johdanto 22 ja 24 kohta ja 5 artikla.

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

Abstract

An Iraqi asylum seeker (A) had sought international protection in Finland in 2015.The Immigration Service rejected the application in 2016 and denied A stay in the country.The administrative court upheld the decision in 2017.While A's asylum application was pending, he married an Iraqi woman who had already been granted asylum in Finland.The couple had a child in 2016.A then applied for international protection for the second time in 2017.The decision was again negative and A was denied stay in the country.In 2020, the administrative court rejected his appeal.A's spouse and child also appealed to the administrative court against the decision by which A's stay in Finland wad denied.The court ruled the appeal inadmissible.As regards the right to appeal against an administrative decision, the court held that an appellant's spouse or minor child could not be considered as a person whom a decision concerns, or whose right, obligation or interest is directly affected by the decision, as provided for in section 7 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (808/2019(.A, his spouse and child applied for leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court.By a provisional decision in 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court stayed the execution of the decision on the denial of stay, pending the count's decision on the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the CRC as well as the European Court of Human Rights in its case law confirm the primacy of the best interests of the child in all decisions concerning children.The court also referred to the Return Directive 2008/115/EC, which states that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing the directive, and in the case law of the CJEU (C-112/20; ECLI:EU:C:2021:197), in which the directive's provisions were read in conjunction with Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamenral Rights.Also, according to section 146 of the Aliens Act (301/2004), when considering refusal of entry, denial of admittance or stay, deportation or an entry ban and the duration of the entry ban, particular attention shall be paid to the best interests of the child and the protection of family life.The Supreme Administrative Court found that the protection of family life, as guaranteed in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be kept in mind when assessing whether a decision on denial of stay can be regarded as having an immediate effect on the right or interest of the appellant's spouse or child.The protection of the right to family life and the best interests of the child would diminish to a considerable extent, if the appellant's spouse or minor child could not have the decision denying the appellant's stay in the country reviewed by a court.This also concerns the spouse and minor child of a third-country national.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the administrative court had not assessed the protection of family life and the best interest of the child when reviewing the decision by which the appellant was denied stay in the country.However, the Supreme Administrative Court did not eventually rule on the denial of stay or the application for leave to appeal.While the case was pending, the circumstances had changed.The appellant's spouse and child had acquired Finnish citizenship in 2021, and the appellant had been granted a fixed-term residence permit (valid until 2026) as a spouse of a Finnish citizen.

4.7.2023 / 4.7.2023 / RHANSKI