![[Sökformulär]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/sok.gif){kind=icon}
![[Info om databasen]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/info2.gif){kind=icon}
![[Söktips]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/soktips.gif){kind=icon}
| [1 / 8] |
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,
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
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 8] |
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,
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
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 8] |
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,
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
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 28.12.1998 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2953/1998 (2992/3/96) Reference to source KHO 1998:78. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1998 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1998 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1998 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court Date of publication: 1999 Pages: pp. 335-343 Subject
freedom of movement,
equality before the law,
Relevant legal provisions sections 5 and 7 of the Constitution Act; Act on Structural Policy Measures in Agriculture and Forestry (1303/1994); Government Ordinance on Compensating Permanent Natural Disadvantage (861/1995) = regeringsformen 5 §, 7 §; lag om strukturpolitiska åtgärder inom jord- och skogsbruk (1303/1994); statsrådets beslut om kompensation för varaktiga naturbetingade nackdelar (861/1995) = hallitusmuoto 5 §, 7 §; laki maa- ja metsätalouden rakennepoliittisista toimenpiteistä (1303/1994); valtioneuvoston päätös pysyvän luonnonhaitan korvaamisesta (861/1995). ECHRP-4-2; Council Regulation (EEC) 2328/91; Council Directive 75/268/EEC Abstract According to a Government Ordinance, a land owner could apply for certain European Union subsidies provided that he did not live farther away from the farm than 12 kilometres.The European Court of Justice had, in the joined cases C-9/97 and C-118/97, found that the fact that a person did not live on the farm did not prevent the granting of the subsidy in question, provided that certain conditions were met.According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the requirement that a person must live closer to the farm than 12 kilometres was not against European Community Law.The Court dismissed also the claim that the said requirement was in conflict with the constitutional clause on equality before the law (section 5 of the Constitution Act) or the provisions on freedom of movement in the ECHR (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) or the Constitution Act (section 7). 23.10.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 8] |
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,
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
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 18.12.2003 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 3128; R2002/602 Reference to source KKO 2003:128. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2003 II July-December Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2003 II juli-december Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2003 II heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2004 Pages: 799-805 Subject
freedom of expression,
freedom of assembly,
freedom of movement,
Relevant legal provisions Chapter 2, section 1 of the Coercive Measures Act; Chapter 25, section 8 of the Penal Code, sections 9, 12, 13 and 14-3 of the Constitution Act = tvångsmedelslagen 2 kapitel 1 §; strafflagen 25 kapitel 8 §; grundlagen 9 §, 12 §, 13 § och 14 § 3 mom. = pakkokeinolaki 2 luku 1 §; rikoslaki 25 luku 8 §; perustuslaki 9 §, 12 §, 13 § ja 14 § 3 mom. ECHR-10; ECHR-11; ECHRP-4-2 Abstract A and a group of other environmental activists had protested against the logging of timber by staying so close to the logging machine that the work had to be interrupted.A was suspected of coercion under the Penal Code.On the basis of the Coercive Measures Act, the police had ordered that A shall not enter the territory of the municipality where the logging was carried out as well as the territory of two other municipalities close by where logging was expected to start in the near future.The ban's duration was originally close to two months, but on A's appeal the court of first instance had reduced it to a little over a month.A wanted the ban to be abolished altogether and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court which considered the case although the ban by that time had expired. The Supreme Court held that as A's actions had in fact prevented the logging, A could be suspected of coercion and the ban was justified.However, the ban should have been limited to the municipality where the logging took place at that time, and it could be in force only as long as that logging had been completed (in practice, one week after the ban had been ordered).The Court noted that the ban infringed on A's freedom of expression, assembly and movement.However, as it was limited to a certain area and time period, it only caused a minor inconvenience to A and was justified considering its purpose (i.e. prevention of possibly considerable economic loss). Two justices of the Supreme Court noted that although A's presence had interrupted the logging, A had not used violence or threat.In addition, before the police had arrested the activists, no efforts had apparently been made in order to persuade the activists to leave the area.The two justices held that the Penal Code could not be interpreted expansively to the detriment of the person suspected of a crime.They also referred to the freedom of expression, assembly and movement as provided for in the Constitution Act and the ECHR.The justices concluded that A's actions had not amounted to coercion and the ban was thus not justified.One of the two justices also noted that in addition to preventing A from moving freely in the country the ban prevented A from exercising his freedom of expression and assembly in a societal issue which A considered important.The justice referred to section 14-3 of the Constitution Act, according to which the public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activities.In the justice's view, the obligation speaks for a restrictive use of coercive measures in a case where a person is suspected of a crime when having gone a bit too far in carrying out a societal activity which as such is protected by the Constitution and that person is not a so-called habitual offender. 21.4.2004 / 7.6.2004 / JKOSKIMI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 10.5.2013 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 1634; 2969/1/10 Reference to source KHO 2013:88. Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministy 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,
freedom of movement,
citizenship (EU),
Relevant legal provisions sections 153-2, 156-1, 156-2, 158a-1, 159-1, 159-2, 159a, 161f-2, 167 and 168-1 of the Aliens Act; section 9 of the Constitution Act; Article 20, 21-1, 45-1 and 45-3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; Article 1, 5-1, 7-1, 8, 14-1, 14-4, 15, 27 and 28 of the directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States = utlänningslag 153 § 2 mom., 156 § 1 och 2 mom., 158a § 1 mom., 159 § 1 och 2 mom., 159a §, 161f § 2 mom., 167 § och 168 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 9 § 1 mom.; Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt artikel 20, artikel 21-1, artikel 45-1 och artikel 45-3; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2004/38/EG om unionsmedborgares och deras familjemedlemmars rätt att fritt röra sig och uppehålla sig inom medlemsstaternas territorier artikel 1, artikel 5-1, artikel 7-1, artikel 8, artikel 14-1, artikel 14-4, artikel 15, artikel 27 och artikel 28 = ulkomaalaislaki 153 § 2 mom., 156 § 1 ja 2 mom, 158a§ 1 mom., 159 § 1 ja 2 mom., 159a §, 161f § 2 mom., 167 § ja 168 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 9 § 1 mom.; Sopimus Euroopan unionin toiminnasta 20 artikla, 21 artikla 1 kohta ja 45 artikla 1 ja 3 kohta; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi (2004/38/EY) Euroopan unionin kansalaisten ja heidän perheenjäsentensä oikeudesta liikkua ja oleskella vapaasti jäsenvaltioiden alueella 1 artikla, 5 artikla 1 kohta, 7 artikla 1 kohta, 8 artikla, 14 artikla 2 ja 4 kohta, 15 artikla, 27 artikla ja 28 artikla. Article 45-1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Abstract X, an EU citizen, had been residing in Finland since 2007.In 2009, he submitted to the police an application for registering his right of residence.The police rejected the application on the grounds that X had repeatedly endangered public order and security during his stay in Finland.The administrative court rejected X's appeal, and he appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that, based on the founding Treaties of the European Union, EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely in the territory of other EU Member States.In accordance with directive 2004/38/EC, the host Member State may require EU citizens to register their right of residence for periods of residence longer than three months.The court held that registration is not compulsory under EU law: it is a supervisory measure and does not form the basis of lawful residence.In the court's view, registration is meant to be a swift administrative measure.The proof required to show that the applicant meets the requirements of registration are specified in section 159a of the Aliens Act, pursuant to directive 2004/38/EC.The relevant provisions in the Aliens Act concerning registration do not explicitly provide that registration could be denied on grounds of public order or security. The court found that apart from the considering of the proof required in connection with registation, the registration procedure is not, as a rule, to assess the conditions on the right of an EU citizen to reside in the country.The court continued by stating that if an EU citizen fails to meet the requirements for the right of residence on grounds of public order or security, the matter should be addressed by means of a decision on refusal of entry or deportation.That procedure includes all the normal guarantees of due process.Also, if it is concerning an EU citizens whose period of residence has exceeded three months, the decision on refusal of entry or deportation is made by the Immigration Service (not the police).In making that decision, it is also possible to decide not to issue a registration certificate.The court concluded that in X's case, no measures had been taken for refusal of entry or deportation.X's being a danger to public order or security had only been referred to as grounds for the decision not to register his right of residence.The court returned the case to the police for a new consideration of the registration issue. 30.10.2013 / 30.10.2013 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 8.6.2017 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 4361/2/16; 2716 Reference to source KHO 2017:95. 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
disabled persons,
non-discrimination,
freedom of movement,
Relevant legal provisions sections 1 and 8(2) of the Act on services for persons with disabilities; section 4 of the Decree on services for persons with disabilities = lag om service och stöd på grund av handikapp 1 § och 8 § 2 mom.; förordning om service och stöd på grund av handikapp 4 § = laki vammaisuuden perusteella järjestettävistä palveluista ja tukitoimista 1 § ja 8 § 2 mom.; vammaisuuden perusteella järjestettävistä palveluista ja tukitoimista annettu asetus 4 §. CRPD Abstract The municipality had previously decided that A, who was visually impaired, could use any taxi service of A's own choise when in need of transport under the Disability Services Act.The question was whether the municipality could later revise its decision to the effect that A was expected to use the municipal trasport service for people with special needs.A claimed the municipal transport service was inflexible and meant longer waiting times.In A's view this restricted the right to personal mobility and was discriminatory under the CRPD. The Supreme Administrative Court held that when providing transport services for persons with special needs under the Disability Services Act, the municipality has a duty to hear the views of the persons concerned, to take into account their personal needs and the limitations caused by their disability, but has no statutory duty to arrange the services according to the exact wishes of the persons concerned.However, because the right to use transport services for persons with disabilities is a subjective right under the Disability Services Act, it follows that transport services cannot be arranged in a manner which would in practice make it impossible for the person concerned to make use of the service.Municipal instructions relating to the practical arrangement of transport services and concerning, e.g., advance ordering and transport times, shall not restrict subjective rights provided for in the Act. The court found that the requirement that A is to use the municipal transport service did not in practice prevent A from using transport services provided under the Disability Services Act.In fact, A had used the municipal service, and it had not been shown that there would have been any risk to A's personal safety.The municipality had also heard A's views before making the decision.Because the municipality has a right to exercise discretion in deciding how to provide transport services for a person with a severe disability, it can also change its practices.The decision, by which A had previously been exempted from using the municipal transport service, was not irreversible to the effect that it could not be revised by another decision.A's appeal was rejected.The court found that the municipality had not acted in breach of the Disability Services Act.The court also concluded briefly that the CRPD, which entered into force in Finland on 10 June 2016, that is, after the municipal decision of 17 November 2015, did not require that the matter should be decided otherwise. 2.2.2018 / 2.2.2018 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|