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: 13.5.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1725; S91/1301

Reference to source

KKO 1993:58.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 224-259

Subject

respect for family life, non-discrimination, rights of the child,
respekt för familjeliv, icke-diskriminering, barnets rättigheter,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, syrjintäkielto, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 7-2 of the Implementing Act of Paternity Act

= lag ang. införande av lagen om faderskap 7 § 2 mom.

= laki isyyslain voimaanpanosta 7 § 2 mom.

ECHR-8, ECHR-14, CRC-7

Abstract

The case dealt with the establishment of paternity.As Mrs.B was married to Mr.C in 1975 when the child A was born, C was regarded as A's father on the basis of legal presumption.Actually Mrs.B had already in 1975 lived together with Mr.D, and the couple was married in 1976, two months after C and B were divorced.In 1977, Mr.D died.There existed medical evidence strongly suggesting the paternity of D.In 1990, C's paternity was nullified by a court.Because of the fact that A was born before the 1975 Paternity Act entered into force, the death of D precluded, according to the explicit wording of section 7-2 of the Implementing Act of the 1975 Paternity Act, the possibility of instituting paternity proceedings.According to the Supreme Court, such a conclusion would be problematic in light of several human rights treaty provisions, including those on non-discrimination, the right to family life and the child's right to know his or her parents.According to the majority of 3 justices, a literal interpretation of the Implementing Act would cause unjustified inequality.The ratio legis of the Act could be realised only by deviating from its wording, that is, by allowing A to institute court proceedings for the establishment of the paternity of the late D.According to the majority, such an interpretation was in harmony with the principle illustrated by Article 7 of the CRC and Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR.One justice, concurring, referred also to the equality clause in section 5 of the 1919 Constitution Act, to Article 6 of the ECHR, and to Article 8 of the CRC.He stated: "... taking particularly into account the provisions of the above-mentioned conventions, falling within the legislative sphere and having been incorporated into domestic law through Acts of Parliament Nos. 438 of 1990 and 1129 of 1991, which have been enacted later in time than the Implementing Act on the Paternity Act, I am of the opinion that section 7, paragraph 2 of the Implementing Act, restricting action in cases of death [of the potential father] is applicable in the case of A."One justice, also concurring, would have decided the case without any reference to human rights treaties or to the Constitution.

26.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / 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: 7.3.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 557; 136/3/97

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

deported persons, freedom of movement, respect for family life, criminality, aliens,
deporterade personer, rörelsefrihet, respekt för familjeliv, brottslighet, utlänningar,
karkotetut henkilöt, liikkumisvapaus, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, rikollisuus, ulkomaalaiset,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 40-1-1 and 40-3 of the Aliens Act

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

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

ECHR-8, Articles 8a-1 and 48-3 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (as amended by the Treaty Establishing the European Union)

Abstract

A was a citizen of the European Union.Since 1986 he had resided partly in Finland, partly in his home country.He had a Finnish wife with whom he had two children.Divorce proceeding were pending.He also had a Finnish girlfriend, who was pregnant with his child.A had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months for a serious drug offence and a deportation decision was given on the basis of section 40-1-1 of the Aliens` Act by the Directorate of Immigration.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.Considering the nature of the crime, the Supreme Administrative Court argued that A's deportation was based on grounds of public policy and public security as specified in section 40-3 of the Aliens` Act and Article 48-3 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.A's freedom of movement as a citizen of the European Union, which is based on Article 8a-1 of the EC Treaty, did not prevent his deportation.On account of these provisions and considering also Article 8 of the ECHR, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration to deport A to his home country and to deny him for five years entry into Finland was not against the law and did not violate A's rights.A's appeal was dismissed.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 6.6.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 1465; 749/3/97

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, deported persons, respect for family life, marriage,
utlänningar, deporterade personer, respekt för familjeliv, äktenskap,
ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, avioliitto,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 1 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

A, who was an alien, had married a Finnish citizen, B, in Finland on 27 September 1996.A had originally come to Finland on 7 September 1996 on the invitation of a Finnish citizen C in order to marry C.However, A had not married C, but B whom he had met on 13 September 1996.A was not granted a residence permit and the Directorate of Immigration ordered him to be deported.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.Considering the circumstances under which the marriage was contracted and taking into account that Article 8 of the ECHR does not secure to a married person a general right to obtain a residence permit in the home country of his or her spouse, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the deportation of A did not violate A's right to respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the ECHR.A's appeal was dismissed.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.2.1988

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

Reference: Report No. 673; 5038/7/87

Reference to source

KHO 1988-A-49.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1988 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1988 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1988 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1989

Pages: pp. 99-104

Subject

aliens, deported persons, refugee status, criminality, respect for family life, political parties,
utlänningar, deporterade personer, flyktingstatus, brottslighet, respekt för familjeliv, politiska partier,
ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, pakolaisen oikeusasema, rikollisuus, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, poliittiset puolueet,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 12, 18, 21 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 12 §, 18 §, 21 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 12 §, 18 §, 21 §.

Articles 1 and 32 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees

Abstract

The applicant had arrived in Finland from Namibia in 1979 with a three-year scholarship from the Department for Development Cooperation of the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.His last residence permit expired in 1987.According to his statement, he was a former member of the SWAPO liberation movement in Namibia.SWAPO therefore did not support the renewal of his passport.While in Finland in 1982, he received a Travel and Identity Document issued by the UN Council for Namibia, with a right to return to Zambia, which was in force until December 1988.

After his training ended in 1982, he studied and worked for other employers, but later became unemployed.He also married a Finn, with whom he had two children.He had a third child with another person in Finland.

In 1987, the Ministry of the Interior decided to deport him to Zambia on the basis of section 18 of the Aliens' Act, immediately after he had served a prison sentence of a total of 8 months and 20 days for several smaller crimes, and to prohibit his return to the country for an unspecified time on the basis of section 21 of the Aliens' Act.The applicant was unemployed, failed to pay child support, used alcohol abundantly, used his money on different games and continuously committed small crimes.According to the Ministry, he had not adjusted to Finnish society, and thus was a threat to it.In Zambia, the applicant would probably be placed in a refugee camp.

The applicant objected to the deportation, claiming that he was a de facto political refugee, as he had been granted refugee status by the UNHCR, and that his life and health would be in danger if he was deported to southern Africa.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the applicant had grounded reasons to fear persecution both in his home country Namibia and in Zambia, the country to which he had a right to return.It had not been shown that he would have been granted asylum in any country.He should thus be considered as a refugee lawfully residing in Finland who could not be deported on the grounds mentioned in the decision of the Ministry of the Interior.According to section 18 of the Aliens' Act and Articles 1 and 32 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, an alien or refugee can only be deported on the grounds of national security or public order and security, or when convicted of a particularily serious offence.None of these grounds were present in the case.The Supreme Administrative Court therefore quashed the decision of the Ministry of the Interior.

3.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 20.1.1995

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

Reference: Report No. 179; 5307/7/94

Reference to source

KHO 1995-A-33.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1995 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1995 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1995 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 145-147

Subject

asylum, respect for family life, refusal of entry, aliens,
asyl, respekt för familjeliv, avvisning, utlänningar,
turvapaikka, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, käännyttäminen, ulkomaalaiset,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 39-4 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 39 § 4 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 39 § 4 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The applicants, family S, were Russian citizens and had arrived in Finland from Russia.As they had not showed that the grounds in section 20 of the Aliens' Act for granting a residence permit existed, or that the country from which they came would not be safe for them to return to, the Ministry of the Interior rejected the applications for residence permits and asylum and made a decision of refoulement of the family.The decision, which was based on sections 20, 30-1, 31, 32-3, 33, 37-3, 38, 39 and 62-1 of the Aliens' Act, also prohibited the family from returning to Finland within two years of the decision.

S appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, asking, i.a., that the execution of the refoulement decision be stayed until the Court had considered the case.He stated in his application that also other family members had applied for asylum and that his own application for asylum was under consideration in the Asylum Board.He also referred to the right to respect for family life guaranteed in Article 8 of the ECHR.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that according to section 39-4 of the Aliens' Act, a decision on refoulement cannot be made before a legal decision on an application for asylum has been reached.Taking into account Article 8 of the ECHR, a decision on asylum cannot be made before an application for asylum of another family member has been legally decided.

The Supreme Administrative Court therefore quashed the Ministry's decision as to the refoulement and the prohibition of return to the country and returned the case to the Ministry for renewed consideration.

14.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 29.10.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 4307; 4720/7/93

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltingsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

refusal of entry, aliens, health care, respect for family life,
avvisning, utlänningar, hälsovård, respekt för familjeliv,
käännyttäminen, ulkomaalaiset, terveydenhoito, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 37 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 37 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 37 §.

ECHR-8, CRC-3, CRC-9, CRC-10, CRC-20, CRC-22, CRC-23, CRC-24

Abstract

The Ministry of the Interior decided on the refoulement of a family consisting of 7 citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic (Kosovo).The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Ministry for new consideration, as there was new information regarding the health of several family members, who were in need of immediate care.This information was not available when the Ministry of the Interior took its decision.

In its decision, the Supreme Administartive Court refers to Article 8 of the ECHR and various articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

16.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 29.10.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 4308; 4721/7/93

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta Förvaltingsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

refusal of entry, respect for family life, aliens, health care,
avvisning, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, hälsovård,
käännyttäminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, terveydenhoito,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 37 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 37 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 37 §.

General reference to respect for family life as provided for in international human rights treaties

Abstract

The Ministry of the Interior had decided on the refoulement of 7 family members who were citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic (Kosovo).The Supreme Administrative Court had quashed the decision and returned the case to the Ministry for new consideration, as there was new information regarding the health of several family members, who were in need of immediate care.This information was not available when the Ministry for the Interior took its decision.

Taking into account this decision (No. 4307; 4720/7/93), which concerned the parents and sisters and brothers of A, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed also the decision on the refoulement of A and returned the case to the Ministry for new consideration.

16.4.1998 / 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: 2.9.1998

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 982; R98/72

Reference to source

VaaHO 1998:9.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses, respect for family life,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, respekt för familjeliv,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 11 and 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 11 § och 20 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 11 § ja 20 §.

ECHR-6-3-d; ECHR-8, CCPR-14-3-e; CCPR-23

Abstract

The complainant, who was engaged to the defendant, had refused to testify before the court of first instance.The defendant was charged with fraud, as he had arguably with intent to deceive persuaded the complainant to give him large sums of money.The court stated that Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which grants a witness the right to refuse to testify owing to a close relationship with the defendant, could also be applied to the complainant in this case.According to Chapter 17, section 11-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, written statements obtained during a pretrial investigation cannot be used as evidence in court.However, if a witness cannot be examined during the main hearing, the court may allow that such statements are taken into account (section 11-2).The court of first instance concluded that since the complainant could not be heard before the court, the statements she had made during the pretrial investigation could be used as evidence.Mainly on the basis of this evidence, the defendant was convicted.

The defendant appealed to the court of appeal which confirmed the complainant's right to refuse to testify in court.The court then referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14 3 e of the CCPR and to the right of the defendant to examine or have examined witnesses against him.The court stated that the prohibition to use statements obtained during a pretrial investigation as evidence in court is an expression of this rule and of the principle of a fair and public hearing.The exception in Chapter 17, section 11-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure should thus be given a narrow interpretation.The court concluded that in this case, the use of the statements made during the pretrial investigation meant that the complainant's right to refuse to testify owing to her close relationship with the defendant was infringed.According to the court, it could not have been the intention of the legislator that a witness's right of refusal to testify could be intervened by virtue of section 11-2.The right of respect for family life as provided in Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 23 of the CCPR should also be taken into account.Using the pretrial investigation statements as evidence in court meant that the defendant had not been able to exercise the minimum rights guaranteed by international treaties.Intervening with the complainant's right of refusal was also to the defendant's disadvantage.Since the statements made during the pretrial investigation could not have been used as evidence in court and there was no other evidence to support the indictment, the court of appeal concluded that the suit be dismissed for lack of evidence.

23.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 29.6.1998

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

Reference: Report No. 1228 (483/3/97)

Reference to source

KHO 1998:28.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1998 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1998 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1998 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 169-179

Subject

children, best interests of the child, child welfare, respect for family life,
barn, barnets bästa, barnomsorg, respekt för familjeliv,
lapset, lapsen etu, lastenhuolto, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Child Welfare Act

= barnskyddslag

= lastensuojelulaki.

ECHR-8; CRC-3; CRC-9; CRC-20

Abstract

A was a single parent.Despite the assistance of the social welfare authorities, she had had serious difficulties in taking care of her child.At her own initiative A gave the child up for adoption.The child, which at the time was 18 months old, was placed in a foster family for the purpose of a future adoption.Some six months later A regretted her decision and wanted the child back.Meanwhile she had also married.The social welfare board transferred the guardianship of the child to itself and decided that the child would stay with the foster parents.The decision was submitted to the approval of the county administrative court.A asked the court to quash the decision of the social welfare board and wanted the custody of the child to herself.With reference to the Child Welfare Act, the court rejected A's appeal and affirmed the decision of the board.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court which also affirmed the board's decision regarding the custody of the child.However, the Court also noted that A's situation had changed since she gave her child up for adoption: she had married and during the appeal procedure had had another child.The Court stated that, as a rule, a transfer of guardianship is a temporary measure.Although the social welfare board had the guardianship of the child, the child could be temporarily placed in the care of the biological mother, provided, however, that the family receive the necessary assistance and support from the social welfare authorities.

Two judges submitted dissenting opinions.The appeal procedure had taken almost three years.Meanwhile, the child had established a warm and safe relationship with the foster parents.Therefore, it was in the best interests of the child to stay with the foster parents.In addition to national legislation, one dissenting judge made a general reference to international treaties binding on Finland.The other dissenting judge also referred to Article 8 of the ECHR and to Articles 3, 9 and 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

23.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 22.2.2000

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

Reference: Report No. 352; 729/3/99

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

asylum, respect for private life, respect for family life, inhuman treatment or punishment,
asyl, respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning,
turvapaikka, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 30, 31 and 38 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 30 §, 31 §, 38 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 30 §, 31 §, 38 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

A had applied for asylum in Finland.During the investigations relating to the application for asylum A had told about his political activities and their consequences in a very general and unspecified manner.A's application was rejected.A appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court which rejected the appeal.However, when discussing the reasons for its decision, the Court noted that while the asylum application was pending, A had several times received hospital treatment in Finland because of mental problems.Therefore, the Court asked the Directorate of Immigration, when making a decision on deportation, to take into account the condition of A's health, the prohibition of inhuman treatment, Article 8 of the ECHR as well as the possible effect of A's mental problems to the statements made during the investigations in connection with the asylum application.

28.10.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.9.2000

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

Reference: Report No. 2302; 4419/3/98

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

children, best interests of the child, respect for private life, respect for family life, family reunification,
barn, barnets bästa, respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, familjeåterförening,
lapset, lapsen etu, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, perheen yhdistäminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 9, 10, 19 and 22 of the Child Welfare Act

= lag om barnskydd 9 §, 10 §, 19 §, 22 §

= lastensuojelulaki 9 §, 10 §, 19 §, 22 §.

ECHR-8; CRC

Abstract

The authorities had placed three children in substitute care with a foster family because of the father's problems with alcohol.The mother had died earlier.The children's father and their relatives were not satisfied with their access to the children or with the upbringing and care of the children in the foster family.The municipal social and health board had rejected the father's application concerning the possibility to place the children in the care of their aunt instead.The county administrative court had rejected the father's appeal.The father appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

In addition to the Child Welfare Act, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed in detail the CRC and Article 8 of the ECHR.The Court emphasized, among other things, the provisions concerning the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions concerning the child, the restrictions to the separation of the child from his or her parents as well as the right of the child to be heard in matters affecting the child.With reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court paid attention to the fact that taking a child into care should be a temporary measure and that all measures should aim at the reunification of the family.A balance should be struck between taking a child into care in order to protect the interests of the child, on the one hand, and the interests of the parents in the form of the reunification of the family, on the other.Special emphasis should be placed on the interests of the child.

At the request of the Court, the children (aged 8, 9 and 11) were heard.They stated that they wished to live with their father in the first place, or with their aunt in the second place.The Court concluded that according to the documentary evidence presented in the case the foster family was capable of providing such circumstances as were required by the needs of the children.On the other hand, the children themselves wished to live with their father or their aunt and the children's relatives supported the latter alternative.The child welfare authorities which had been heard in the case did not object to this alternative.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that placing the children in substitute care with a family which had been accepted by their relatives may contribute to the reunification of the family which is in line with the case law under Article 8 of the ECHR.The decisions of the social and health board and the county administrative court were quashed and the matter was returned to the board.The Court further noted that special emphasis should be placed in the continuation of the treatment required by the mental health of the children as well as to their possibility to stay in contact with the previous foster family.

28.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 31.10.2000

Judicial body: Helsinki Court of Appeal = Helsingfors hovrätt = Helsingin hovioikeus

Reference: Report no. 3077; R99/1857

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki Court of Appeal

Helsingfors hovrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of expression, freedom of the press, respect for private life, respect for family life, doping,
yttrandefrihet, tryckfrihet, respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, dopning,
ilmaisuvapaus, painovapaus, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, doping,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 27, section 2 of the Penal Code

= strafflagen 27 kapitel 2 §

= rikoslaki 27 luku 2 §.

ECHR-10

Abstract

A reporter and an editor-in-chief of the Finnish News Agency had published a piece of news according to which a former top skier, while he was still active, had used hormones in order to improve his performance.They also claimed that "persons in a leading position" within the Finnish Ski Association were involved in the case.The name of the skier was given but not the names of the other persons possibly involved.The skier as well as a number of persons in a position of authority within the Ski Association started legal proceedings against the reporter and the editor, accusing them of public libel and claiming damages.Before the court, the defendants referred to their right as journalists to protect their sources.Partly because of this, they were not able to provide sufficient evidence in support of their claims.They were both convicted.Damages were awarded to all claimants.All the parties in the case appealed against the decision.

In assessing the balance between the freedom of expression and the right to privacy, the Helsinki Court of Appeal referred to Article 10-2 of the ECHR and the possible restrictions of freedom of expression as well as to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v.Norway (judgment of 20 May 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999 III) and Ionel Dalban v.Romania (judgment of 28 September 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999 VI).The court found that the use of doping in sports is comparable to matters of public interest as specified in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.With regard to such matters, it could be considered that the freedom of expression covers possible recourse to severe criticism and a degree of exaggeration.However, the conclusion of the court of appeal was that in this case the defendants had not proven the information given in the news to be true, nor had they shown that they had sufficient reasons to believe that the information was true or could be substantiated.The court found the defendants guilty, but mitigated their punishments as compared to those imposed by the court of first instance.In assessing the question of pecuniary damages, the court of appeal referred to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A, no. 316-B).As compared to the decision of the court of first instance, the appeal court reduced the amount of damages as well as the number of persons entitled to damages.In addition to the skier, only a few persons within the Ski Association were awarded compensation.

The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal in the case.

28.10.2002 / 12.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 8.11.2001

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

Reference: Report No. 2773, 2978/3/00

Reference to source

KHO 2001:53.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2001 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2001 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2001 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2003

Pages: pp. 184-189

Subject

respect for private life, respect for family life, aliens, principle of proportionality, residence permit,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, proportionalitetsprincipen, uppehållstillstånd,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, suhteellisuusperiaate, oleskelulupa,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 20 and 38 of the Aliens Act; section 7 of the Aliens Decree

= utlänningslag 1 §, 20 §, 38 §; utlänningsförordning 7 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 §, 20 §, 38 §; ulkomaalaisasetus 7 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

A had come to Finland from the Philippines with a visa issued for a short-term visit.During her stay in Finland A applied twice for a residence permit.While the decision of the Directorate of Immigration was pending A married a Finnish man.The marriage was brought to the knowledge of the Directorate of Immigration which, however, rejected A's application.It referred to the fact that the application for a first-time residence permit has to be made in the country where the applicant resides (section 7 of the Aliens Decree).It also concluded that A could not be issued a residence permit on the grounds of family ties as she had not, prior to entering Finland, lived with her Finnish husband for a minimum period of approximately two years (section 20 of the Aliens Act).The administrative court rejected A's appeal.A and her husband appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.At that time, A was pregnant.

The Supreme Administrative Court came to the conclusion that the decisions of the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court had restricted A's rights to an unnecessary degree and violated her and her husband's right to respect for private and family life.The Court referred to Article 8 of the ECHR, to the principle of proportionality as provided for in section 1 of the Aliens Act as well as to section 38 of the Aliens Act according to which all the relevant matters and circumstances shall be taken into account when considering the refusal of entry.Because of the nature of the job of A's husband in government service it was unreasonable to expect that he would move to his wife's home country.Sending A back to the Phillippines for the purpose of applying for a residence permit in the Finnish embassy there would prevent her from enjoying her right to family life and would also be an unreasonable financial burden to A and her husband.A's pregnancy also spoke for the issuing of a residence permit.The case was returned to the Directorate of Immigration for a new consideration.

29.10.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI