![[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 / 6] |
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
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 6] |
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
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 6] |
Date when decision was rendered: 10.6.1988 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2491; 6288/1/87 Reference to source KHO 1988-A-48. 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. 98-99 Subject
criminality,
passport,
right to leave one's country,
constitution,
Relevant legal provisions Passport Act; Passport Decree; sections 7-2 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act = passlagen; passförordningen; regeringsformen 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom. = passilaki; passiasetus; hallitusmuoto 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom. CCPR-12-2 Abstract Prior to October 1987, there was no Act of Parliament governing the issuing, denying and cancellation of passports.The matter was dealt with in a Government Decree, which was at least partially problematic in the light of Article 12 of the CCPR (see the critical comments of several members of the Human Rights Committee in UN Doc.CCPR/C/SR.170).On the basis of this Decree, a local police chief had cancelled the passport of A, who was suspected of a crime.The Country Administrative Court upheld the decision. A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the cancellation of his passport was contrary to Article 12-2 of the CCPR, according to which everyone is free to leave his country and that all restrictions on this right must according to Article 12-3 of the CCPR be "provided by law".As the Covenant had the status of an Act of Parliament and the restrictions were laid down in a Decree only, section 92-2 of the Constitution Act prohibited the application of the Decree.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Covenant had been incorporated through an Act and a Decree.As Article 12-3 of the CCPR allows certain restrictions on the rights set forth in Article 12-2 of the CCPR and taking into account section 7-2 of the Constitution Act, the provisions of the Passport Decree could be applied so that the applicant's passport was cancelled.There was no conflict of norms between the CCPR and the relevant provisions of the Passport Decree. The Court can be understood to have expressed its willingness to directly apply the provisions of the CCPR.However, as the Court found no norm conflict in the case, it did not go into the issues of the hierarchical status of the Covenant, the applicability of lex posterior etc. 16.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 6] |
Date when decision was rendered: 23.12.2008 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 3443; 2381/3/07 Reference to source KHO 2008:90. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2008 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2008 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2008 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Prima Oy Date of publication: 2011 Pages: 537-560 Subject
aliens,
deported persons,
criminality,
respect for family life,
respect for private life,
Relevant legal provisions sections 146, 147, 149-1, 150-1 and 150-2 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. och 150 § 1 och 2 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. ja 150 § 1 ja 2 mom. ECHR-3; ECHR-8 Abstract X, who was a Somali citizen and originated from Somaliland, had arrived in Finland as an asylum seeker with his father C and had been issued with a residence permit on the basis of family ties in 1995.At the time X had been 10 or 12 years old (he had on various occasions given two different dates of birth and his age had thus not been definitely established).During his stay in Finland X had repeatedly committed criminal offences, including several robberies, assaults and thefts.In 2006, the Finnish Immigration Service decided that X is deported to Somaliland.After the deportation decision X had continued his criminal activities.He was suspected of an assault and of several robberies and thefts.X appealed against the decision of the Immigration Service.Both the administrative court and the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there were sufficient grounds for deportation as prescribed in the Aliens Act: X had been found guilty of several offences, carrying a maximum sentence of imprisonment for one year or more.Through his activities, he had shown that he was liable to endanger other people's safety.As provided for in the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasised the overall consideration of the deportation decision in which account must be taken of the facts on which the decision is based and the facts and circumstances otherwise affecting the matter as a whole.In addition to the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed at length the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, pertaining to expulsion of aliens following a criminal conviction as well as the relevant criteria in assessing whether an expulsion measure is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.It took notice of the following decisions in particular: Ahmed v Austria (17 December 1996), Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands (23 May 2007), Nnyanzi v The United Kingdom (8 April 2008), Üner v The Netherlands (18 October 2006), Kaya v Germany (28 June 2007), Emre v Switzerland (22 May 2008) and Maslov v Austria (23 June 2008). The Supreme Administrative Court referred, among other sources, to the reports by the UNHCR and the IOM according to which the situation in Somaliland was stable and peaceful and people originating from Somaliland were in general not in need of international protection.X had told he was a member of a clan family which was the largest clan in Somaliland.Based on a report by the IOM and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands), the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the expulsion to Somaliland of a person belonging to the largest clan family in that area would not generally expose the person concerned to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. Regarding the protection of private and family life the Supreme Administrative Court noted that X was an adult and had no family members in Finland (as defined in section 37 of the Aliens Act).X had arrived in Finland with C but had told later that he was in fact not C's son.X had also told that his mother still lived in Somalia.The Court concluded that X did not have a family life in Finland, within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR.Because of his young age at the time, X could not have influenced the decision to come to Finland nor his way of entering the country.His integration into Finnish society had failed, for reasons that were not altogether attributable to him.However, despite the length of his stay, he had not developed strong ties to Finland.Deportation to Somaliland would mean poorer living conditions for X.However, taking into account the long-term serious threat to public safety caused by X's criminal activities, his deportation did not amount to an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.Considering that X's criminal acts had mostly been committed against persons strangers to him and had thus caused a threat to public order and safety, that he had continued his criminal activities after the deportation decision, that he had no strong ties to Finland, that the situation in Somaliland was stable and that X had ties to Somaliland and the largest clan family in that area, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the considerations speaking for X's deportation weighed more heavily than those against deportation.It upheld the decisions of the Immigration Service and the administrative court. 16.3.2016 / 29.5.2017 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 6] |
Date when decision was rendered: 23.12.2008 Judicial body: Supreme Administative Court = Hösta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 3444; 2412/3/07 Reference to source KHO 2008:91. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2008 July-December Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2008 juli-december Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2008 heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Prima Oy Date of publication: 2011 Pages: 560-581 Subject
aliens,
deported persons,
criminality,
respect for family life,
respect for private life,
Relevant legal provisions sections 146, 147, 149-1, 150-1 and 150-2 of the Aliens Act = utlänningslag 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. och 150 § 1 och 2 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 146 §, 147 §, 149 § 1 mom. ja 150 § 1 ja 2 mom. ECHR-3; ECHR-8 Abstract X was a Somali citizen and had arrived in Finland at the age of 10.He had been issued with a residence permit on the basis of family ties in 1992.During his stay in Finland he had committed several criminal offences, including robberies, assaults and thefts.In 2006, the Finnish Immigration Service decided to deport X to Puntland, Somalia.The administrative court upheld the decision.X appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court found that there were sufficient grounds for deportation as prescribed in the Aliens Act: X had been found guilty of repeated offences, among them several robberies, assaults and thefts, for which he had been sentenced to imprisonment for all in all 7½ years.Some of the offences were regarded as aggravated and had been committed against persons strangers to X.After the deportation decision X had continued his criminal activities and was suspected of 16 new offences, among them several thefts.As provided for in the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasised the overall consideration of the deportation decision in which account must be taken of the facts on which the decision is based and the facts and circumstances otherwise affecting the matter as a whole.In addition to the Aliens Act, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed at length the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, pertaining to expulsion of aliens following a criminal conviction as well as the relevant criteria in assessing whether an expulsion measure is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.It took notice of the following decisions in particular: Ahmed v Austria (17 December 1996), Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands (23 May 2007), Nnyanzi v The United Kingdom (8 April 2008), Üner v The Netherlands (18 October 2006), Kaya v Germany (28 June 2007), Emre v Switzerland (22 May 2008) and Maslov v Austria (23 June 2008). The Supreme Administrative Court referred, among other sources, to the reports by the UNHCR and the IOM according to which the situation in Puntland was stable and people originating from Puntland were in general not in need of international protection.X had told he was a member of a sub-clan of the largest clan family in Puntland.Based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands), the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the expulsion to Puntland of a person who originated from the area and has clan or family links there would not generally expose the person concerned to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. Regarding the protection of private and family life the Supreme Administrative Court held that X did not have a family life in Finland, within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR.He was an adult and had no family members in Finland (as defined in section 37 of the Aliens Act).However, his mother and six siblings lived in Finland.X had lived most of his childhood and youth in Finland.He had a permament residence permit and he had social and cultural ties with Finland. X had told he came from Mogadishu and had never lived in Puntland.Because of his young age at the time, X could not have influenced the decision to come to Finland nor his way of entering the country.His integration into Finnish society had failed, for reasons that were not altogether attributable to him.Although the situation in Puntland was stable, because of the large number of internally displaced persons in the area, the local authorities had limited possibilities to assist X after his return.X's mother and siblings lived in Finland, and he would have no relatives to turn to in Puntland.While X could apparently rely on clan protection, such protection could not be regarded as sufficient to guarantee X's basic needs.Deporting X to Puntland could therefore seriously endanger his possibilities to cope in the poor circumstances in that area.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that, taking also into account Article 8 of the ECHR, there was no fair balance between the considerations speaking for and against deportation.Despite X's criminal acts which endangered the rights and safety of others, his deportation was under the circumstances not necessary in a democratic society.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative court and the Immigration Service. The decision was made by a vote (3-2).Two dissenting justices held that the considerations speaking for deportation outweighed those against deportation.In their view, X's criminal acts had caused a long-term and serious threat to public order and safety.He had not stopped his criminal activities after the deportation decision.X had no strong links to Finland.Although deportation to Puntland would mean poorer living conditions for X, the situation in Puntland was stable and X had clan links there. 16.3.2016 / 16.3.2016 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 6] |
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
|
|
|
|