Date when decision was rendered: 9.10.2000

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2229; S97/1935

Reference to source

KKO 2000:97.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2000 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2000 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2000 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 2001

Pages: pp. 500-516

Subject

non-discrimination, principle of proportionality, compensation, general principles of law,
icke-diskriminering, proportionalitetsprincipen, skadestånd, allmänna rättsprinciper,
syrjintäkielto, suhteellisuusperiaate, vahingonkorvaus, yleiset oikeusperiaatteet,

Relevant legal provisions

Damage Compensation Act; Act on the special protection of the river Kyröjoki (1139/1991)

= skadeståndslagen; lag om specialskydd för Kyro älv (1139/1991)

= vahingonkorvauslaki; Kyröjoen erityissuojelulaki (1139/1991)

Abstract

A contract between a company and the Government had not been fully implemented and had become void because of a new Act pertaining to the subject of the contract.On the basis of the Act, the company had already received some compensation.However, the company also accused the Government of breach of contract and demanded additional compensation.In support of its claim, the company referred not only to relevant national legislation but also to some general principles of law, among them the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination as they result from the ECHR.It considered the said principles as restrictions to the discretion of the governmental authorities.

The court of first instance concluded that it had not been shown that the Government had committed a breach of contract or an act of negligence when enacting the new legislation.The principles of law, which the company referred to, could not alone and separately be applied as grounds for damages.The case went further to the court of appeal and to the Supreme Court, but the decisions of the two courts do not refer to the ECHR nor to general principles of law resulting from the ECHR.

28.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / 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