Date when decision was rendered: 11.2.1999

Judicial body: County Administrative Court of Kuopio = Kuopio länsrätt = Kuopion lääninoikeus

Reference: Report No. 143; D/938/4110/98

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

right to choose one's residence, freedom of movement,
rätten att välja boningsort, rörelsefrihet,
oikeus valita asuinpaikkansa, liikkumisvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 13 and 14 of the Social Welfare Act; sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Municipality of Residence Act; section 7-1 of the Constitution Act

= socialvårdslag 13 §, 14 §; lag om hemkommun 1 §, 2 §, 3 §; regeringsformen 7 § 1 mom.

= sosiaalihuoltolaki 13 §, 14 §; kotikuntalaki 1 §, 2 §, 3 §; hallitusmuoto 7 § 1 mom.

ECHRP-4-2-1; CCPR-12-1

Abstract

A had moved from the municipality of X to the municipality of Y to live with her daughter.Y had thus become her municipality of residence.When A's daughter died, the social welfare board in the municipality of Y placed A in a service home for the elderly as she had no other place to live in.A wanted to move back to the municipality of X and asked this municipality to arrange her a place in a service home there.The application was rejected.A appealed to the county administrative court.She referred to her freedom to choose her own residence as guaranteed in the Constitution Act and in international human rights treaties and claimed that she could not enjoy this right in practice.

The County Administrative Court of Kuopio dismissed the appeal.According to the Social Welfare Act, a municipality has a duty to provide social services only to persons who have their residence in the municipality.A's municipality of residence was Y.The court noted the Government Bill to the Constitution Act which with respect to the freedom of movement refers to the link between civil rights and social rights and states that the freedom to choose one's residence may include a positive obligation for the government to take action in order to ensure the enjoyment of the freedom in practice.The court also noted that limitations of the freedom of movement had to be based on the law and be necessary and acceptable.Furthermore, international human rights provisions, among them Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, had to be taken into account.The court concluded that A had a constitutional right to move to the municipality of X if she so wanted.However, the Constitution Act, Article 2-1 of Protocol No. 4, or Article 12-1 of the CCPR could not be interpreted to mean that the municipality had a duty to provide a person, who did not have his or her residence there, with housing or other social services which would in advance ensure his or her possibility to move into that municipality.

The Supreme Administrative Court decided not to consider A's appeal.

25.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM