Date when decision was rendered: 28.7.2005

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

Reference: Report no. 1892; 2105/3/04

Reference to source

KHO 2005:50.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2005 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2005 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2005 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 91-100

Subject

right to liberty, security of person, right to life, integrity, aliens, domestic violence, residence permit,
rätt till frihet, personlig säkerhet, rätt till liv, integritet, utlänningar, familjevåld, uppehållstillstånd,
oikeus vapauteen, henkilökohtainen turvallisuus, oikeus elämään, koskemattomuus, ulkomaalaiset, perheväkivalta, oleskelulupa,

Relevant legal provisions

section 21 of the Aliens Act (378/1991); sections 54-5, 58-4 and 215-1 of the Aliens Act (301/2004); section 7 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag (378/1991) 21 §; utlänningslag (301/2004) 54 § 5 mom., 58 § 4 mom. och 215 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 7 §

= ulkomaalaislaki (378/1991) 21 §; ulkomaalaislaki (301/2004) 54 § 5 mom., 58 § 4 mom. ja 215 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 7 §.

Abstract

A had been issued a fixed-term residence permit on the basis of a family tie.She was married to B who resided in Finland with a permanent residence permit.Some six months after A have moved to Finland, she had to leave her home because of B's violent behaviour.She moved first to a shelter for women who have been subjected to domestic violence, and later to an apartment of her own.When her first residence permit expired, A applied for a new fixed-term residence permit.The Directorate of Immigration rejected her application on the grounds that the requirements under which A had originally been issued a residence permit were no longer met.Though A did not intend to divorce her husband, her family life with B had ended after a fairly short period of time and she had no other ties to Finland.The administrative court agreed with the Directorate of Immigration.Both instances based their decisions of the Aliens Act (378/1991) in force at that time.As the Act did not contain any explicit preconditions for issuing a new fixed-term residence permit, principles concerning revocation of residence permits were applied instead.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court considered both the old (378/1991) and the new Aliens Act (301/2004), which entered into force 1 May 2004.As compared to the old Act, the new Aliens Act contains slightly different rules on the revocation of a residence permit in cases where the requirements under which the permit was issued are no longer met.According to the Government Bill to the Act, one of the principal ideas behind these provisions is that in cases in which the changes in circumstances cannot be attributed to the applicant, the residence permit may not be revoked if the applicant is already residing in Finland.The new Aliens Act also contains explicit provisions concerning the requirements for issuing a new fixed-term residence permit.According to these provisions, an alien who has been issued with a fixed-term residence permit on the basis of family ties may be issued with a new residence permit on the basis of close ties to Finland even when the family ties are broken.The Supreme Administrative Court also referred to section 7 of the Constitution Act which provides for the right to life, personal liberty, integrity and security and states that the personal integrity of an individual shall not be violated.The Court held that in this case, the facts pertaining to A's separation from her husband must be taken into account when considering whether A should be issued with a new fixed-term residence permit.Considering the principles in the new Aliens Act, the circumstances with had led to A's separation from her husband as well as the circumstances A would face if she returned to her home country (Tunisia) as a woman separated from her husband, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that refusing a residence permit in A's case would be manifestly unreasonable.The Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Directorate of Immigration and returned the matter to the Directorate of Immigration for reconsideration in accordance with the new Aliens Act (301/2004).

26.5.2006 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI