![[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: 19.2.1988 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,
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
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 9.12.2002 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 3220; 433/3/02 Reference to source KHO 2002:84. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2002 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2002 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2002 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2005 Pages: pp. 504-511 Subject
respect for private life,
respect for family life,
aliens,
marriage,
refugee status,
Relevant legal provisions sections 18b and 18c of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 18b § och 18c § = ulkomaalaislaki 18b § ja 18c §. ECHR-8 Abstract A had arrived from Iran to a UNHCR refugee camp in Turkey in 1995 and had been issued a residence permit in Finland on the basis of refugee status in 1997.A applied for a residence permit on behalf of his Iranian wife B on the basis of family ties.According to section 18c of the Aliens Act, a family member of an alien residing in Finland with a residence permit issued on the basis of refugee status shall be issued a residence permit unless there are reasons relating to public order or safety or other weighty reasons against issuing the permit.The Directorate of Immigration considered that it had not been shown that there had been any genuine family life between A and B and rejected A's application.The administrative court dismissed A's appeal.The Supreme Administrative Court granted A leave to appeal. A and B had known each other since childhood.Before A left for Turkey in 1995, he had asked B to join him, but that was not possible at the time.While being in Finland, A had kept in touch with B.They were married in Iran in 2000 according to Iranian legislation.Being a refugee, A could not be present at the wedding.After the wedding, A and B had spent a few weeks together in Turkey in 2001. The Supreme Administrative Court referred to section 18c of the Aliens Act and Article 8 of the ECHR and noted that the purpose of these provisions is to protect genuine and close family life.When issuing a residence permit, the basis for the decision is an assumption of genuine family life.According to the Supreme Administrative Court, when assessing the meaning of family life in this case, the requirements set by religion and culture in Iran had to be taken into account.Consequently, it could not be required that A and B should have lived together before their marriage.After the marriage, A's status as a refugee gave him limited possibilities to see his wife.In this case, leading a genuine family life required thus that the wife should have a possibility to move to live with her husband.The Court concluded that considering the circumstances in the matter in their entirety, the fact that A and B had up to now not led a family life did not mean that there would not have been a bond between the spouses which requires the protection of their family life when applying for a residence permit on the basis of a family tie in order to lead family life in Finland.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Directorate of Immigration and returned the case to the latter for a new consideration. 9.5.2003 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 31.10.2002 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2770; 1866/3/02 Reference to source KHO 2002:69. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2002 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2002 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2002 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2005 Pages: pp. 342-352 Subject
aliens,
refugee status,
asylum,
Relevant legal provisions sections 20, 30, 31, 37, 38 and 43 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 20 §, 30 §, 31 §, 37 §, 38 §, 43 § = ulkomaalaislaki 20 §, 30 §, 31 §, 37 §, 38 §, 43 §. Article 1-D of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract A was a stateless Palestinian refugee registered in a UNRWA refugee camp in Lebanon.A had applied for asylum and a residence permit in Finland, but the Directorate of Immigration had rejected the application and had ordered that A should be deported to Lebanon.A appealed against the decision to the administrative court and further to the Supreme Administrative Court.Both courts dismissed the appeal. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to Article 1-D of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, according to which the Convention does not apply to persons who receive protection or assistance from UN organs or agencies other than the UNHCR.However, when such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, the person shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of the Convention.In assessing the applicability of Article 1-D in A's case, the court referred to statements and interpretation guidelines issued by the UNHCR.In the court's opinion, A had not managed to show that his/her safety and indispensable subsistence would be endangered in Lebanon.When returning to Lebanon, A still had the possibility of receiving assistance from the UNRWA.The court concluded that A was not entitled to the benefits of the Refugee Convention.The Supreme Administrative Court then considered the case on the basis of the Aliens Act.It ruled that A could not be granted asylum and issued a residence permit on the basis of fear of persecution or need of protection as prescribed in sections 30 and 31 of the Aliens Act.Moreover, considering all the circumstances in the case, it could not be concluded that refusing a residence permit would be clearly unreasonable, as prescribed in section 20 of the Aliens Act.The Supreme Court dismissed A's appeal. 6.8.2003 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 26.11.2003 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2970; 764/3/01 Reference to source KHO 2003:82. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2003 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2003 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2003 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2007 Pages: pp. 374-385 Subject
refugee status,
deported persons,
Relevant legal provisions Section 36 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 36 § = ulkomaalaislaki 36 §. Article 1-C-5 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract A and his family had arrived in Finland as quota refugees in 1990.In 1999, the Directorate of Immigration decided to abrogate A's refugee status.A no longer needed protection as the circumstances which caused him/her to be a refugee no longer existed.The administrative court rejected A's appeal, and A took the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.A claimed that the principle of equality had been violated as only A's refugee status had been abrogated but not that of other quota refugees originating from A's country of nationality.A also claimed that the real reason behind the decision was that A had been sentenced to imprisonment for a serious drug offence.As long as A had refugee status, he/she could not be deported.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that in Finnish administrative practice, abrogation of a person's refugee status was rare and it was not done systematically as soon as the human rights situation in the country of origin had improved.Therefore, the abrogation of refugee status in an individual case must be based on a well-founded reason.According to legislation concerning aliens, commission of a serious crime is a factor which may be taken into account when considering an alien's entry into a country or his/her residence in the country.The Court found that there had been no abuse of discretionary power nor a violation of the principle of equality when the Directorate of Immigration had started the procedure for the abrogation of A's refugee status.The Court then discussed the abrogation of refugee status under the Aliens Act and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.It pointed out that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration was based on a general assessment of the social changes in A's country of nationality.However, the matter should also have been assessed taking into account A's individual need of protection and considering whether A could still refuse to avail himself/herself of the protection of his/her country of nationality.As the documents on interviews with A and his/her family made at the refugee camp were not available, no such evidence had been presented on the grounds of which the Directorate of Immigration could have abrogated A's refugee status on the basis of section 36 of the Aliens Act.The Court concluded that the decision of the Directorate of Immigration was against the law and quashed this decision as well as the decision of the administrative court. 15.1.2004 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 24.2.2009 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report no. 350; R2007/349 Reference to source KKO 2009:14. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2009 I January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2009 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2009 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2009 Pages: pp. 125-132 Subject
right not to be tried or punished twice,
refugee status,
social assistance,
aliens,
ne bis in idem,
Relevant legal provisions chapter 36, sections 1 and 2 of the Penal Code = strafflagen 36 kapitel 1 § och 2 § = rikoslaki 36 luku 1 § ja 2 §. ECHRP-7-4; Article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract In applying for a residence permit in Finland on the basis of family reunification, X had told that she was married to Z, who already had a permanent residence permit in Finland and who was the father of her three children.After X had been issued with a residence permit, she and Z applied for various social benefits which the Social Insurance Institution (KELA) and the city of Helsinki had also granted.Later, X and Z told the authorities that they were in fact not married, that Z was not the father of X's children and that X's spouse and the father of her children lived in Ethiopia.Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal convicted X of aggravated fraud and ordered her to pay damages to KELA and the city of Helsinki. In her appeal to the Supreme Court, X pointed out that she had already been convicted by the court of first instance of a registration offence for having applied for a residence permit on false grounds.X claimed that she could not be tried and punished again for having applied for social benefits on the basis of her residence permit.The Supreme Court referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Gradinger v.Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995; Oliveira v.Switzerland, judgment of 30 July 1998; Fischer v.Austria, judgment of 29 May 2001; W.F. v.Austria, judgment of 30 May 2002; Sailer v.Austria, judgment of 6 June 2002) and held that the alleged fraud and the registration offence were two different acts and two different offences.Investigating the alleged fraud was therefore not in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. X also referred to Article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which obligates states not to impose penalties on refugees on account of their illegal entry or presence.The Supreme Court concluded that X was not charged with illegal entry or presence but with fraud which she had allegedly committed while residing in the country.Also, no evidence had been presented in the case, showing that X would have been subjected to persecution or other threat in her country of departure (Ethiopia) and she could therefore not be acknowledged as a refugee.Article 31 of the Refugee Convention did thus not prevent the investigation of the alleged fraud. The Supreme Court then considered whether X's acts constituted fraud as prescribed in the Penal Code.The Court found that the Aliens Act, applicable at that time, did not contain a provision which would have invalidated a residence permit issued on false grounds.X's residence permit had also not been invalidated in an administrative judicial procedure, nor had it been cancelled under the Aliens Act.Therefore, when X had applied for the social benefits, her residence permit had been valid.According to the legislation concerning social benefits, the amount of benefits may depend on whether the applicant is married, cohabiting or is a legal guardian.However, submitting correct information on the applicant's marriage, spouse or the father of the applicant's children is not a requirement for the award of the benefits.The Court held that regardless of the false information, X would still have been entitled to the benefits.The Court continued that no clarification had been presented in the case as to the amount of the social benefits which would have been awarded to X, if she had given correct information on her family relations.Therefore, there was also no evidence showing the amount of damage allegedly caused to KELA and the city of Helsinki.Moreover, it had not been shown, that X, by giving false information on her family relations, would have tried to obtain larger benefits than she was entitled to.The Supreme Court concluded that X was not guilty of fraud, as charged, and she was thus not liable to pay damages either. One dissenting justice of the Supreme Court held that a valid residence permit does not prevent liability to punishment and damages, when it is obvious that the residence permit has been issued on the basis of false information and an unfounded claim for family reunification. 9.2.2010 / 28.2.2011 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 5.4.2013 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report no. 789; R2011/861 Reference to source KKO 2013:21. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2013 January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2013 januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2013 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2013 Pages: pp. 179-188 Subject
aliens,
refugee status,
Relevant legal provisions chapter 33, section 1 of the Penal Code = strafflagen 33 kapitel 1 § = rikoslaki 33 luku 1 §. Article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Abstract X had arrived in Finland from Afghanistan by plane through four transit countries.Having spent six days in Finland, X wanted to continue his journey to Canada and further to the United Kingdom.He was caught at the airport having presented a false passport to the border authorities.X then applied for asylum in Finland.Because of the false passport, the court of first instance sentenced X as a young offender to 45 days of conditional imprisonment for forgery.The court of appeal decided the case in X's favour and found that Article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees exempted X from being punished on account of having presented a false passport.The prosecutor appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court. In discussing the interpretation of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, the Supreme Court relied on UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers (1999) as well as to United Kingdom case law relating to Article 31 (R v.Uxbridge Magistrates Court & Another, Ex parte Adimi [1999] abd House of Lords R v.Asfaw [2008]).The court also made a brief reference to Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that the right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, and to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, on general rules of interpretation. The Supreme Court noted that when interpreting the Refugee Convention, not only its wording should be taken into account but also its object and protective purpose.Therefore, no exact time limit could be given to terms such as coming "directly" from a country or presenting oneself "without delay" to the authorities.The assessment is made on a case-by-case basis.The court found that an asylum seeker's transit and short-term stopover in other countries on the way to final destination does not exclude the protection under Article 31 of the Convention, even in cases where the asylum seeker is not subjected to persecution in any of the transit countries.X could thus be regarded as having come directly from a country where his life or freedom was threatened.The court also found that X met the requirement under the Refugee Convention of having presented himself without delay to the authorities.In the court's view, because X could have relied on the protection under Article 31 in his final destination, it would have been an artificial attempt to deny that protection during his journey.The court also held that it made no difference in this case that X had applied for asylum when leaving the country and not immediately after his entry into the country.Finally, X had made a statement in which he had shown that he had been subjected to persecution in his country of origin, Afghanistan.He had thus shown good cause for his illegal entry.The Supreme Court concluded that X's entry into the country met the requirements under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention to the effect that he could not be punished for having presented a false passport when trying to leave the country.The charge against X was therefore dismissed. 5.11.2013 / 5.11.2013 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 6.2.2015 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 290; 3469/1/13 Reference to source KHO 2015:18. Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för Högst förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet OIkeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
aliens,
refugee status,
residence permit,
deported persons,
criminality,
Relevant legal provisions sections 36-1, 54-1, 54-2, 54-6, 107-1-5, 146-1, 149-1-2 and 150-1 of the Aliens Act; Articles 11-1-c and 16-1 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted = utlänningslag 36 § 1 mom., 54 § 1, 2 och 6 mom., 107 § 1 mom. 5 punkten, 146 § 1 mom., 149 § 1 mom. 2 punkten och 150 § 1 mom.; Rådets direktiv 2004/83/EG om miniminormer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer skall betraktas som flyktingar eller som personer som av andra skäl behöver internationellt skydd samt om dessa personers rättsliga ställning och om innehållet i det beviljade skyddet artikel 11-1-e och 16-1 = ulkomaalaislaki 36 § 1 mom., 54 § 1, 2 ja 6 mom., 107 § 1 mom. 5 kohta, 146 § 1 mom., 149 § 1 mom. 2 kohta ja 150 § 1 mom.; Neuvoston direktiivi 2004/83/EY kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelyä pakolaisiksi tai muuta kansainvälistä suojelua tarvitseviksi henkilöiksi koskevista vähimmäisvaatimuksista sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällöstä 11 artikla 1 kohta e alakohta ja 16 artikla 1 kohta. Article 1-C-5 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract X was an Afghan citizen and had arrived in Finland as a quota refugee in 2004 together with his mother and siblings.At the time X was 17 years of age and still a minor.The UNHCR had designated X and his family as refugees based on the status of X's mother as a widowed single mother without male protection.In 2013, the Finnish Immigration Service withdrew X's refugee status and rejected his application for a new fixed-term residence permit.It also decided that X is deported to Afghanistan and prohibited from entering Finland for five years.X had committed several sexual offences for which he had been convicted to imprisonment and he could be regarded as being a threat to public order or security.On X's appeal, the administrative court held that despite the fact that there were valid grounds for deportation, X was still in need of international protection because of the unstable security and human rights situation in Afghanistan, and therefore he could not be deported to that country.The Immigration Service took the case to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that X's refugee status had been based on the vulnerable situation of his mother, as a single parent to her minor children.X was now an adult.After X left Afghanistan and became a refugee, there had been considerable changes in his personal circumstances which gave cause to believe that he could lead a reasonable life in his home country.Based on various reports presented in the case, the Supreme Administrative Court did not find it plausible that X would be subjected to inhuman treatment or persecution in Afghanistan owing to his ethnic origin, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.The court acknowledged that the overall security situation varied in Afghanistan.However, the province which X originally came from had been reported to be safe.The court concluded that, if returned to that area, X would not face a real risk of being subjected to serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts.X was manifestly no longer in need of protection, because the circumstances in connection with which he had been recognized as a refugee had ceased to exist, and this change in circumstances was significant and non-temporary (section 107 of the Aliens Act). X had applied for a new fixed-term residence permit on the basis of his refugee status.Because he was manifestly no longer in need of international protection, his refugee status could be withdrawn.Therefore, the requirements under which his previous fixed-term residence permit had been issued were no longer met.While X's appeal was pending, he had married a Finnish citizen and they had a child.X's paternity had been established but he was not the child's quardian.Residence permit on the basis of family ties had to be applied separately.A residence permit may also be refused if the applicant is considered a danger to public order or security. X had been found guilty of several sexual offences, among them aggravated child sexual abuse, and he had been convicted to imprisonment for two years and two months.All his offences had been committed against the personal integrity of another individual.Through his behaviour X had shown that he is liable to endanger other people's safety.There were thus valid grounds for his deportation.The fact that X had left his home country at an early age (he was less than 10 years old at the time) spoke against his deportation.However, he was nearly 18 years old and an adult when he came to Finland.X's mother and most of his siblings lived in Finland.However, this was not decisive, because X was already an adult.X's sister and her family lived in Afghanistan.X's marriage to a Finnish citizen and the establishment of his paternity took place when his appeal was already pending.The child was not in his care and it had not been shown that he would in fact have any real contact with the child.X was not at work but lived on social welfare.He had been accepted as a student at a university of applied sciences, but it had not been shown that he would actually have began his studies.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that under the circumstances X did not have close ties with Finland.In the overall consideration of the deportation decision, the reasons speaking for deportation weighed more heavily than those against it.The Supreme Administrative Court quasted the decision of the administrative court and upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. 18.3.2016 / 18.3.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 24.6.2013 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 2068; 1558/1/11 Reference to source KHO 2013:113. 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
aliens,
asylum,
refusal of entry,
refugee status,
Relevant legal provisions sections 87-1, 88-1 and 90 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom. och 90 § = ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 88 § 1 mom. ja 90 §. ECHR-3; ECHR-13; Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Abstract Iranian nationals X and Y had been granted refugee status by the UNHCR in Turkey in 2007.The UNHCR regional office in Stockholm had confirmed in 2010 that their refugee status was still valid.X and Y applied for asylum in Finland in 2008, but the Immigration Service dismissed their applications and decided they are to be deported to Iran.The Immigration Service found that, on the basis of country reports and the applicants' own accounts there were no substantial grounds for believing that X and Y would face the risk of being persecuted in Iran.It also noted that a state party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees can examine and determine refugee status in a national asylum procedure regardless of the determination of refugee status by the UNHCR.The administrative court upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. The Supreme Administrative Court recalled that under international law states have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens.Refugee status granted by the UNHCR is not as such binding on a state party to the Refugee Convention.However, the court found that the recognition of refugee status by the UNHCR in an individual case must be given due weight and, if possible, the grounds for that recognition must be established, when that same person seeks asylum in a state party to the Refugee Convention.The state must evaluate particularly the danger or risk the asylum applicant is exposed to if returned to his or her home country.In the present case the Immigration Service had made a brief reference only to the refugee status granted by the UNHCR and had noted that in considering the requirements for international protection, Finland was not bound by the determination of refugee status by the UNHCR.The administrative court had not attempted to examine the matter in more detail, for example, by conducting an oral hearing.Because the UNHCR's grounds for recognising X and Y as refugees had not been appropriately examined by the Immigration Service or the administrative court, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Immigration Service and referred the matter back to the Immigration Service for a new consideration. In discussing the significance of the UNHCR refugee status determination in a national asylum process, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jabari v Turkey (judgment of 11 July 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VIII).It also referred to the cases of R.C. v Sweden (judgment of 9 March 2010) and S.F. et al v Sweden (judgment of 15 May 2012) concerning deportations to Iran and the human rights situation in Iran. 21.6.2016 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|