Date when decision was rendered: 19.9.1996

Judicial body: County Administrative Court of Central Finland = Länsrätten i Mellersta Finland = Keski-Suomen lääninoikeus

Reference: Report No. 552; 551/4030/96

Reference to source

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

Databasen FLOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FLOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of movement, right to leave one's country, passport,
rörelsefrihet, rätt att lämna sitt land, pass,
liikkumisvapaus, oikeus lähteä maasta, passi,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 7-2 of the Constitution Act; section 34 of the Act on the Securing of Child Maintenance

= regeringsformen 7 § 2 mom.; lag om tryggande av underhåll för barn 34 §

= hallitusmuoto 7 § 2 mom.; laki lapsen elatuksen turvaamisesta 34 §.

ECHRP-4-2-2, ECHRP-4-2-3, CCPR-12-2, CCPR-12-3

Abstract

The board of social and health affairs had proposed that the county administrative court assign a prohibition of issuing a passport to A, as laid down in section 34 of the Act on the Securing of Child Maintenance, unless A settled an acceptable guarantee for paying the maintenance of his child B.The obligation to pay the maintenance was ordered by the court of first instance.According to the board, there existed reasonable doubts that A would leave the country.This in turn might risk the payment of B's maintenance.

The County Administrative Court of Central Finland rejected the application of the board of social and health affairs.It referred to Article 2-2 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, according to which everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.The county administrative court noted that the right can be restricted only in accordance with Article 2-3 of the same Protocol.The court also referred to Articles 12-2 and 12-3 of the CCPR and to section 7-2 of the Constitution Act.According to the Constitution Act, necessary restrictions on this right may be prescribed by an Act of Parliament in order to ensure legal proceedings or the enforcement of a sentence or to secure the fulfilment of the obligation to carry out national defence.

The county administrative court argued that neglecting payments of maintenance is not such a reason as included in section 7 of the Constitution Act, or in the above-mentioned articles of the ECHR or the CCPR, that could justify a restriction of the right to leave a country.The court came to the conclusion that it could not prohibit the issuing of the passport in this case.

31.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.10.1991

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

Reference: Report No. 3171; 787/4/91

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

passport, compulsory military service, right to leave one's country,
pass, värnplikt, rätt att lämna sitt land,
passi, asevelvollisuus, oikeus lähteä maasta,

Relevant legal provisions

Military Service Act; section 9-1 of the Passport Act

= värnpliktslagen; passlagen 9 § 1 mom.

= asevelvollisuuslaki; passilaki 9 § 1 mom.

ECHRP-4-2, CCPR-12

Abstract

The applicant was a Finnish citizen who had resided and been registered in Sweden since December 1986.On 10 September 1990, his application for a passport was rejected by the Finnish Embassy in Stockholm on the grounds that he was wanted by the Finnish police for violation of the Military Service Act, since he had failed to report for duty in Finland.The applicant lodged an appeal against the Embassy's decision at the County Administrative Court of Uusimaa.The appeal was dismissed.The applicant claimed that as a Finnish citizen permanently residing in Sweden, he had no military obligations towards the Finnish State, and taking into account Article 4-2 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the CCPR concerning the right to leave any country, including one's own, he could not be denied a passport on the basis of section 9-1 of the Passport Act.

In its decision, the Supreme Adminstrative Court stated that the authorities are entitled under the Passport Act to deny a passport to a person between the age of 17 and 19 who is liable for military service, unless that person can show, in a way described in the Passport Decree, that military service does not form an obstacle to his receiving a passport.Since the applicant was liable for military service and had not shown that military service did not form an obstacle to the issuing of a passport, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the county administrative court.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 10.6.1988

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

Reference: Report No. 2491; 6288/1/87

Reference to source

KHO 1988-A-48.

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. 98-99

Subject

criminality, passport, right to leave one's country, constitution,
brottslighet, pass, rätt att lämna sitt land, grundlagen,
rikollisuus, passi, oikeus lähteä maasta, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

Passport Act; Passport Decree; sections 7-2 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act

= passlagen; passförordningen; regeringsformen 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom.

= passilaki; passiasetus; hallitusmuoto 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom.

CCPR-12-2

Abstract

Prior to October 1987, there was no Act of Parliament governing the issuing, denying and cancellation of passports.The matter was dealt with in a Government Decree, which was at least partially problematic in the light of Article 12 of the CCPR (see the critical comments of several members of the Human Rights Committee in UN Doc.CCPR/C/SR.170).On the basis of this Decree, a local police chief had cancelled the passport of A, who was suspected of a crime.The Country Administrative Court upheld the decision.

A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the cancellation of his passport was contrary to Article 12-2 of the CCPR, according to which everyone is free to leave his country and that all restrictions on this right must according to Article 12-3 of the CCPR be "provided by law".As the Covenant had the status of an Act of Parliament and the restrictions were laid down in a Decree only, section 92-2 of the Constitution Act prohibited the application of the Decree.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Covenant had been incorporated through an Act and a Decree.As Article 12-3 of the CCPR allows certain restrictions on the rights set forth in Article 12-2 of the CCPR and taking into account section 7-2 of the Constitution Act, the provisions of the Passport Decree could be applied so that the applicant's passport was cancelled.There was no conflict of norms between the CCPR and the relevant provisions of the Passport Decree.

The Court can be understood to have expressed its willingness to directly apply the provisions of the CCPR.However, as the Court found no norm conflict in the case, it did not go into the issues of the hierarchical status of the Covenant, the applicability of lex posterior etc.

16.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 19.9.1991

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

Reference: Report No. 3172; 786/4/91

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of movement, passport, right to leave one's country, compulsory military service,
rörelsefrihet, pass, rätt att lämna sitt land, värnplikt,
liikkumisvapaus, passi, oikeus lähteä maasta, asevelvollisuus,

Relevant legal provisions

Military Service Act; section 9-1 of the Passport Act

= värnpliktslagen; passlagen 9 § 1 mom.

= asevelvollisuuslaki; passlagen 9 § 1 mom.

ECHRP-4-2, CCPR-12

Abstract

The applicant was a Finnish citizen who had resided and been registered in Sweden since 1986.On 2 November 1990, his application for a passport was rejected by the Finnish Embassy in Stockholm on the grounds that he was wanted by the Finnish police for violation of the Military Service Act, since he had failed to report for duty in Finland.The applicant lodged an appeal against the Embassy's decision at the County Administrative Court of Uusimaa.The appeal was dismissed.The applicant claimed that as a Finnish citizen permanently residing in Sweden, he had no military obligations towards the Finnish State, and taking into account Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the CCPR concerning the right to leave any country, including one's own, he could not be denied a passport on the basis of section 9-1 of the Passport Act.

In its decision, the Supreme Adminstrative Court stated that the authorities are entitled under the Passport Act to deny a passport to a person between the age of 17 and 19 who is liable for military service, unless that person can show in a way described in the Passport Decree that military service does not form an obstacle to his receiving a passport.Since the applicant was liable for military service and had not shown that military service did not form an obstacle to the issuing of a passport, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the county administrative court.

17.4.1998 / 31.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 6.2.2014

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

Reference: Report no. 289; 906/3/13

Reference to source

KHO 2014:22.

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

Databas 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, family reunification, passport,
utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, familjeåterförening, pass,
ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, perheen yhdistäminen, passi,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 5, 7-2, 11-1-1, 13-1, 14-1, 35 and 50-1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 5 §, 7 § 2 mom., 11 § 1 mom. 1 punkten, 13 § 1 mom., 14 § 1 mom., 35 § och 50 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 5 §, 7 § 2 mom., 11 § 1 mom. 1 kohta, 13 § 1 mom., 14 § 1 mom., 35 § ja 50 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

B, who was a Somali citizen, had married A, a Finnish citizen, in Kenya in 2011.B then applied for a residence permit in Finland on the basis of family ties.According to section 35 of the Aliens Act, a requirement for issuing a residence permit is that the applicant has a valid travel document.Exceptions to this rule are possible in cases explicitly listed in section 35.B had a Somali passport.However, Finland does not accept travel documents issued by Somalia.The Immigration Service rejected B's application, on the grounds that B had not presented a valid travel document and no grounds had been brought forth for making an exception to the travel document requirement.The administrative court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that in the practice of public authorities section 35 of the Aliens Act has not been applied to the effect that exceptions could be made only in cases explicitly listed in section 35.The court found that it was apparent from the statements and guidelines of the Immigration Service that in addition to the exceptions listed in section 35, the Immigration Service was considering the possibility of making other exceptions in individual cases, particularly on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR and the right to protection of family life.The court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights which has emphasised that in the context of both positive and negative obligations the state must strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole (Rodriques da Silva and Hoogkamer v the Netherlands, judgment of 31 January 2006).In the case of Hode and Abdi v the United Kingdom (judgment of 6 November 2012) concerning family reunion, the European Court of Human Rights found no justification for treating refugees who married post-flight differently from those who married pre-flight.

The Supreme Administrative Court continued by noting that under section 50 of the Aliens Act, family members of a Finnish citizen have a right to obtain a residence permit in Finland.However, B could not enjoy this right because as a Somali citizen B could not obtain from the Somali authorities a travel document which would have been accepted by Finland.B's and A's right to family reunification under section 50 would thus be prevented for reasons beyond their control.According to the Immigration Service an exception could be made to the travel document requirement in individual cases provided that the family has been started before the sponsor comes to Finland.The Supreme Administrative Court held, however, that a sponsor who is a Finnish citizen has an equal right to family reunification in Finland under section 50, irrespective of the point in time when the family has been started.Denying B a residence permit on the sole ground that B did not have or could not obtain from the Somali authorities a valid travel document did not sufficiently take into account B's right to obtain a residence permit in the spouse's home country Finland.Under the circumstances denying the residence permit restricted B's and A's right to family reunification in Finland more than was necessary.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Immigration Service and referred the matter back to the Immigration Service for a new consideration.

15.2.2016 / 15.2.2016 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 1.7.2015

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

Reference: Report no. 1873; 3782/3/13

Reference to source

KHO 2015:107.

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, family reunification, passport,
utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, familjeåterförening, pass,
ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, perheen yhdistäminen, passi,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 5, 7-2, 11-1-1, 13-1, 14-1, 35 and 114-1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 5 §, 7 § 2 mom., 11 § 1 mom. 1 punkten, 13 § 1 mom., 14 § 1 mom., 35 § och 114 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 5 §, 7 § 2 mom., 11 § 1 mom. 1 kohta, 13 § 1 mom., 14 § 1 mom., 35 § ja 114 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

A was a Somali citizen who had arrived in Finland in 2006 and had been issued a continuous residence permit on the basis of need for protection.In 2011, she married B, who was also a Somali citizen.The marriage took place in Ethiopia and was later registered into the Finnish population register.B then applied for a residence permit in Finland on the basis of family ties.According to section 35 of the Aliens Act, a requirement for issuing a residence permit is that the applicant has a valid travel document.Exceptions to this rule are possible in cases listed in section 35.B had a Somali passport.However, Finland does not accept travel documents issued by Somalia.The Finnish Immigration Service rejected B's application, on the grounds that he had not presented a valid travel document and no grounds had been brought forth for making an exception to the travel document requirement.The administrative court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that in the practice of public authorities section 35 of the Aliens Act has not been applied to the effect that exceptions could be made only in cases explicitly listed in section 35.The court found that it was apparent from the statements and guidelines of the Immigration Service that in addition to the exceptions listed in section 35, the Immigration Service was considering the possibility of making other exceptions in individual cases, particularly on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR and the right to protection of family life.The court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights which has emphasised that in the context of both positive and negative obligations the state must strike a fair balance between competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole (Rodriques da Silva and Hoogkamer v the Netherlands, judgment of 31 January 2006).In the case of Hode and Abdi v the United Kingdom (judgment of 6 November 2012) concerning family reunion, the European Court of Human Rights found no justification for treating refugees who married post-flight differently from those who married pre-flight.The Supreme Administrative Court found that in the present case the question was whether Finland had a positive obligation to issue B with a residence permit in order to protect A's and B's right to family life.

The Supreme Administrative Court then referred to section 114 of the Aliens Act which provides that, as a rule, a residence permit is issued on the basis of family ties to a family member of an alien who lives in Finland and has been issued with a residence permit on the basis of need for protection.Interpreting section 35 literally would make it impossible for B to obtain a residence permit, because as a Somali citizen, he could not obtain from the authorities in Somalia a travel document which would have been accepted by Finland.A's and B's possibility for family reunification would thus be prevented for reasons beyond their control.The Immigration Service had held that an exception to section 35 could be made, in individual cases, provided the family has been started before one of the spouses comes to Finland.In the court's view, such an interpretation would mean in practice that an alien who resides legally in Finland cannot start a family and lead a family life in Finland with a person who comes from a country whose passports are not valid for entry to Finland.The Supreme Administrative Court found that denying B a residence permit on the sole ground that he did not have and could not obtain from the Somali authorities a valid travel document did not sufficiently take into account A's right to family life and restricted A's and B's right to family reunification in Finland more than was necessary.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Immigration Service and referred the matter back to the Immigration Servie for a new consideration.

15.2.2016 / 15.2.2016 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 15.8.2017

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

Reference: Report no. 3736/3/15; 3872

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

passport, respect for private life, data protection, limitations of rights and freedoms,
pass, respekt för privatliv, dataskydd, inskränkningar av friheter och rättigheter,
passi, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, tietosuoja, oikeuksien ja vapauksien rajoitukset,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 5c(1), 6a and 29 of the Passport Act; sections 1(2) and 8(1) of the Personal Data Act; sections 3(3) and 16a of the Act on the Processing of Personal Data by the Police; section 10 of the Constitution Act

= passlagen 5c § 1 mom., 6a § och 29 §; personuppgiftslag 1 § 2 mom och 8 § 1 mom.; lag om behandling av personuppgifter i polisens verksamhet 3 § 3 mom. och 16a §; grundlagen 10 §

= passilaki 5c § 1 mom., 6a § ja 29 §; henkilötietolaki 1 §, 2 § 2 mom. ja 8 § 1 mom.; laki henkilötietojen käsittelystä poliisitoimessa 3 § 3 mom. ja 16a §; perustuslaki 10 §.

ECHR-8; Articles 7, 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

The Finnish Embassy in Switzerland had rejected a passport application because the applicant had not agreed to it that his fingerprints are stored not only in the passport's data chip but also in the passport register.The applicant claimed that storing the fingerprints in the passport register was an undue interference with the right to private life and the protection of personal data.

The Passport Act provides for, e.g., the security features for passports and contains provisions on biometric data, including fingerprints, and the storing of fingerprints in the passport register.The Act on the Processing of Personal Data by the Police regulates the use of the data in the passport register.The Act provides, e.g., that the police is allowed to use the fingerprint data in the passport register for other purposes than collecting and recording that data only in cases where the police needs to identify a victim of a natural or other disaster or a victim of crime or when a victim cannot be identified by any other means.The fingerprint data extracted from the passport register must be erased as soon as the comparison of fingerprints has been completed.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that storing fingerprint data in a register, outside of the data chip integrated in the passport, constitutes processing of personal data, which is regulated in the Personal Data Act, as amended in order to incorporate the Data Protection Directive (1995/46/EC).Storage of fingerprint data in the passport register thus falls within the scope of EU law, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU is applicable.The court also took into account Article 8 of the ECHR.The court noted that the right to private life and the protection of personal data, as enshrined in the Charter and the ECHR, are not absolute rights and may be subject to limitations, when such limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights and are proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the storing of fingerprints in an external data system, which is not integrated in the passport, provides more extensive protection for privacy, because it not only protects the passport against fraudulent use but also protects the true identity and person of the passport holder.By comparing a passport applicant's fingerprints to the data in the passport register it is possible to prevent identity theft as well as situations where a person applies for multiple passports using different identities.Also, with the help of the data in the register, a person's identity can be verified in cases where the passport chip has been damaged or the person has lost his or her identity document.The regulations are both for the protection of the individual and public safety.The court also noted that the use of the fingerprint data in the passport register is restricted by law.

The court concluded that the provisions in the Passport Act concerning storage of fingerprint data in the passport register and the limitations imposed on the right to private life and the protection of personal data are precise and defined in sufficient detail.They are compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the ECHR and the criteria that must be met in the restriction of constitutional rights, as defined in the Finnish constitutional rights system, particularly the requirements of acceptability and proportionality.The passport application could thus be rejected on grounds that it did not meet the requirements prescribed in the Passport Act.

16.1.2018 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI