Date when decision was rendered: 22.8.1991

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

Reference: Report No.2744; 520/7/91

Reference to source

KHO 1991-A-47.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1991 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1991 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1991 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1992

Pages: pp. 160-161

Subject

deprivation of liberty, aliens, compensation,
frihetsberövande, utlänningar, skadestånd,
vapaudenriisto, ulkomaalaiset, vahingonkorvaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Aliens Act; section 2-1-3 of the Act on County Administrative Courts; section 3-1 of the Administrative Appeals Act

= utlänningslag; lag om länsrätter 2 § 1 mom. 3 punkten; lag om ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 3 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki; lääninoikeuslaki 2 § 1 mom. 3 kohta; laki muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa 3 § 1 mom.

CCPR-2

Abstract

On 2 April 1990, the Human Rights Committee had found a violation by Finland of Article 2 of the CCPR in the Torres case (Communication No.291/1988).Mr.Torres had not been able to have the legality of his deprivation of liberty determined by a court without delay.The Human Rights Committee stated that Finland therefore should compensate Mr.Torres for the violation of his rights.In his application to the Ministry of the Interior, Mr.Torres requested that Finland pay him the sum of FIM 50.000 plus an annual 16 % interest rate since 10.1.1988.

In its decision, the Ministry of the Interior stated that Mr.Torres had not been able to have the legality of the deprivation of his liberty determined by a court on the basis of the provisions of the Aliens' Act in force at the time of the deprivation of his liberty.Therefore the Ministry of the Interior, while rejecting most of the demands and taking into account Article 2 of the CCPR, decided to award Mr.Torres the sum of FIM 7000 as compensation.The Ministry noted that the relevant provisions of the Aliens' Act had subsequently been amended by Act 408/1990.

In the Supreme Administrative Court, Mr.Torres demanded the payment of the full sum requested by him in his application to the Ministry of the Interior.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Ministry's decision was not a binding decision on Mr.Torres' right to compensation as regards the part of the application for compensation rejected by the Ministry.The Ministry's decision was not such a decision which according to section 3-1 of the Administrative Appeals Act could be appealed.The decision of the Ministry could be brought to the county administrative court as an administrative dispute.For this reason, the Supreme Adminstrative Court transferred the case to the county administrative court.

1.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

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,
deporterade personer, rörelsefrihet, respekt för familjeliv, brottslighet, utlänningar,
karkotetut henkilöt, liikkumisvapaus, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, rikollisuus, ulkomaalaiset,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 6.6.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 1465; 749/3/97

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, deported persons, respect for family life, marriage,
utlänningar, deporterade personer, respekt för familjeliv, äktenskap,
ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, avioliitto,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 1 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

A, who was an alien, had married a Finnish citizen, B, in Finland on 27 September 1996.A had originally come to Finland on 7 September 1996 on the invitation of a Finnish citizen C in order to marry C.However, A had not married C, but B whom he had met on 13 September 1996.A was not granted a residence permit and the Directorate of Immigration ordered him to be deported.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.Considering the circumstances under which the marriage was contracted and taking into account that Article 8 of the ECHR does not secure to a married person a general right to obtain a residence permit in the home country of his or her spouse, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the deportation of A did not violate A's right to respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the ECHR.A's appeal was dismissed.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.9.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 2389; 1135 and 1136/3/97

Reference to source

KHO 1997:96.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1997 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1997 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1997 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 137-140

Subject

aliens, children, deportation, rights of the child,
utlänningar, barn, utvisning, barnets rättigheter,
ulkomaalaiset, lapset, karkottaminen, lapsen oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 41-1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 41 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 41 § 1 mom.

CRC-3-1

Abstract

A, who was an alien, had obtained a temporary residence permit in order to study at a university.Later his wife and his two minor children, who were also foreign citizens, had followed him to Finland and were granted temporary residence permits.As A did not make much progress in his studies, the residence permits of A and his family were not renewed.A and his family resided in the country without the required residence permit.The Directorate of Immigration gave an expulsion decision.A lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the family had lived in Finland for over six years and had during that time adapted themselves to Finnish society and way of life.The elder child went to Finnish elementary school, the younger child was at a day-care centre.The children had no ties to their country of origin.The family members spoke Finnish and they had relatives in Finland.A and his wife had a business of their own and thus their income was at least partially secured.A had expressed an interest in the continuation of his studies.Taking into account the best interest of the children and considering the circumstances of the family as a whole, there was no adequate cause to expel the family.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Directorate of Immigration.In its decision the Court referred to Article 3-1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

2.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

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,
utlänningar, deporterade personer, flyktingstatus, brottslighet, respekt för familjeliv, politiska partier,
ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, pakolaisen oikeusasema, rikollisuus, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, poliittiset puolueet,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 20.1.1995

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

Reference: Report No. 179; 5307/7/94

Reference to source

KHO 1995-A-33.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1995 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1995 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1995 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 145-147

Subject

asylum, respect for family life, refusal of entry, aliens,
asyl, respekt för familjeliv, avvisning, utlänningar,
turvapaikka, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, käännyttäminen, ulkomaalaiset,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 39-4 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 39 § 4 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 39 § 4 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The applicants, family S, were Russian citizens and had arrived in Finland from Russia.As they had not showed that the grounds in section 20 of the Aliens' Act for granting a residence permit existed, or that the country from which they came would not be safe for them to return to, the Ministry of the Interior rejected the applications for residence permits and asylum and made a decision of refoulement of the family.The decision, which was based on sections 20, 30-1, 31, 32-3, 33, 37-3, 38, 39 and 62-1 of the Aliens' Act, also prohibited the family from returning to Finland within two years of the decision.

S appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, asking, i.a., that the execution of the refoulement decision be stayed until the Court had considered the case.He stated in his application that also other family members had applied for asylum and that his own application for asylum was under consideration in the Asylum Board.He also referred to the right to respect for family life guaranteed in Article 8 of the ECHR.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that according to section 39-4 of the Aliens' Act, a decision on refoulement cannot be made before a legal decision on an application for asylum has been reached.Taking into account Article 8 of the ECHR, a decision on asylum cannot be made before an application for asylum of another family member has been legally decided.

The Supreme Administrative Court therefore quashed the Ministry's decision as to the refoulement and the prohibition of return to the country and returned the case to the Ministry for renewed consideration.

14.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 29.10.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 4307; 4720/7/93

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltingsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

refusal of entry, aliens, health care, respect for family life,
avvisning, utlänningar, hälsovård, respekt för familjeliv,
käännyttäminen, ulkomaalaiset, terveydenhoito, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 37 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 37 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 37 §.

ECHR-8, CRC-3, CRC-9, CRC-10, CRC-20, CRC-22, CRC-23, CRC-24

Abstract

The Ministry of the Interior decided on the refoulement of a family consisting of 7 citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic (Kosovo).The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Ministry for new consideration, as there was new information regarding the health of several family members, who were in need of immediate care.This information was not available when the Ministry of the Interior took its decision.

In its decision, the Supreme Administartive Court refers to Article 8 of the ECHR and various articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

16.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 29.10.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 4308; 4721/7/93

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta Förvaltingsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

refusal of entry, respect for family life, aliens, health care,
avvisning, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, hälsovård,
käännyttäminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, terveydenhoito,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 37 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 37 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 37 §.

General reference to respect for family life as provided for in international human rights treaties

Abstract

The Ministry of the Interior had decided on the refoulement of 7 family members who were citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic (Kosovo).The Supreme Administrative Court had quashed the decision and returned the case to the Ministry for new consideration, as there was new information regarding the health of several family members, who were in need of immediate care.This information was not available when the Ministry for the Interior took its decision.

Taking into account this decision (No. 4307; 4720/7/93), which concerned the parents and sisters and brothers of A, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed also the decision on the refoulement of A and returned the case to the Ministry for new consideration.

16.4.1998 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 8.11.2001

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

Reference: Report No. 2773, 2978/3/00

Reference to source

KHO 2001:53.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2001 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2001 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2001 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2003

Pages: pp. 184-189

Subject

respect for private life, respect for family life, aliens, principle of proportionality, residence permit,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, proportionalitetsprincipen, uppehållstillstånd,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, suhteellisuusperiaate, oleskelulupa,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 20 and 38 of the Aliens Act; section 7 of the Aliens Decree

= utlänningslag 1 §, 20 §, 38 §; utlänningsförordning 7 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1 §, 20 §, 38 §; ulkomaalaisasetus 7 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

A had come to Finland from the Philippines with a visa issued for a short-term visit.During her stay in Finland A applied twice for a residence permit.While the decision of the Directorate of Immigration was pending A married a Finnish man.The marriage was brought to the knowledge of the Directorate of Immigration which, however, rejected A's application.It referred to the fact that the application for a first-time residence permit has to be made in the country where the applicant resides (section 7 of the Aliens Decree).It also concluded that A could not be issued a residence permit on the grounds of family ties as she had not, prior to entering Finland, lived with her Finnish husband for a minimum period of approximately two years (section 20 of the Aliens Act).The administrative court rejected A's appeal.A and her husband appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.At that time, A was pregnant.

The Supreme Administrative Court came to the conclusion that the decisions of the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court had restricted A's rights to an unnecessary degree and violated her and her husband's right to respect for private and family life.The Court referred to Article 8 of the ECHR, to the principle of proportionality as provided for in section 1 of the Aliens Act as well as to section 38 of the Aliens Act according to which all the relevant matters and circumstances shall be taken into account when considering the refusal of entry.Because of the nature of the job of A's husband in government service it was unreasonable to expect that he would move to his wife's home country.Sending A back to the Phillippines for the purpose of applying for a residence permit in the Finnish embassy there would prevent her from enjoying her right to family life and would also be an unreasonable financial burden to A and her husband.A's pregnancy also spoke for the issuing of a residence permit.The case was returned to the Directorate of Immigration for a new consideration.

29.10.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 30.3.2001

Judicial body: Turku Administrative Court = Åbo förvaltningsdomstol = Turun hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 01/0146/2; 01907/00/5720

Reference to source

Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for private life, respect for family life, aliens, best interests of the child, family reunification, residence permit,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, barnets bästa, familjeåterförening, uppehållstillstånd,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, lapsen etu, perheen yhdistäminen, oleskelulupa,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1c, 15 and 18c of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 1c §, 15 §, 18c §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1c §, 15 §, 18c §.

ECHR-8; CRC-3; CRC-9-1

Abstract

A, who was a Russian citizen, had married C, a Finnish citizen.A and her daughter B, who was a minor, both applied for a permanent residence permit in Finland.C was unemployed, and A had no job in Finland either.The Directorate of Immigration rejected the applications.According to the Directorate of Immigration, B could not be granted a residence permit as she did not have guaranteed means of support.Considering this and other relevant circumstances relating to the matter, A could not be granted a residence permit either.C appealed against the decision to the administrative court.

The administrative court referred, among other things, to Article 8 of the ECHR and to the best interests of the child as provided for in CRC and in the Aliens Act (section 1c).The court noted that A's application should be decided first, on the basis of the provisions in the Aliens Act concerning family members of Finnish citizens.According to the relevant provisions, a residence permit is issued to a spouse of a Finnish citizen unless there are reasons relating to public order or safety or other weighty reasons against issuing the permit (section 18c-1).The Directorate of Immigration had not presented any such reasons for refusing A's application.Once the decision on A's application had been made, B's application would be decided on the basis of provisions concerning family members of an alien residing in Finland with a permanent residence permit (section 18c-2).This provision included the requirement of guaranteed means of support.However, the court noted, this provision of the Aliens Act does not supersede the obligations set in international human rights treaties.Although a child has no general right to be granted a residence permit in the country in which his or her parents are residing, human rights provisions guarantee the unification of the family unless there are grounds against it as listed in Article 8 of the ECHR.In this particular case, B should be issued a residence permit for the purpose of family unification.The administrative court quashed the decision of the Directorate of Immigration and returned the matter to the latter for a new consideration.

Two dissenting members of the court noted that Article 8 of the ECHR does not guarantee spouses the right to be issued a residence permit in the home country of one of the spouses nor the right to choose in which country they wish to live and, after that choice has been made, the right to family unification.The best interests of the child had to be taken into account, as provided for in the CRC and the Aliens Act.B had no guaranteed means of support.Furthermore, she had lived in Russia all her life and was adjusted to the cultural and linguistic environment of that country.It was in B's interest to live with her mother, but it was not necessary for them to move to Finland.When considering A's application for a residence permit, all circumstances relating to the matter should be taken into account in their entirety and emphasis should be placed on the best interests of the child B.As B's interests required that her living conditions remain unchanged for the time being, there were weighty grounds against issuing A a residence permit.The decision of the Directorate of Immigration did not curtail A's rights more than is necessary.The dissenting members rejected the appeal.

30.10.2002 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.3.2002

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

Reference: Report No. 658; 2827/3/00

Reference to source

KHO 2002:28.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2002 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2002 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2002 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2004

Pages: pp. 213-224

Subject

respect for private life, respect for family life, aliens, deported persons, deportation, legal protection,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, deporterade personer, utvisning, rättsskydd,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, karkottaminen, oikeusturva,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 8, 37, 38, 39 and 43 of the Aliens Act; sections 3, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC (on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health); section 32-3 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act

= utlänningslag 8 §, 37 §, 38 §, 39 § och 43 §; rådets direktiv 64/221/EEG (om samordningen av särskilda åtgärder som gäller utländska medborgares rörlighet och bosättning och som är berättigade med hänsyn till allmän ordning, säkerhet eller hälsa) 3, 8 och 9 artikel; förvaltningsprocesslag 32 § 3 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 8 §, 37 §, 38 §, 39 § ja 43 §; neuvoston direktiivi 64/221/ETY (ulkomaalaisten liikkumista ja oleskelua koskevien, yleiseen järjestykseen ja turvallisuuteen sekä kansanterveyteen perustuvien erityistoimenpiteiden yhteensovittamisesta) 3, 8 ja 9 artiklat; hallintolainkäyttölaki 32 § 3 mom.

ECHR-3; ECHR-8; CRC

Abstract

A, who was an EU-citizen, had been sentenced to imprisonment, in Finland, for attempted manslaughter of his former wife with whom he also had a child.A court of first instance had later imposed a restraining order on A.The Directorate of Immigration had deported A to his home country on grounds of public order and public security.It also decided to prohibit A from entry to Finland for a period of five years.When making its decision on A's deportation, the Directorate of Immigration also took into account Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and concluded that these provisions did not prevent A's deportation.According to the Directorate of Immigration, the decision on A's deportation could be enforced despite a possible appeal against it.A's deportation had taken place on the following day after the decision had been served on him.Having appealed to the administrative court, which did not change the decision of the Directorate of Immigration, A appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court.In his appeal, he referred, among other provisions, to Article 8 of the ECHR and to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to Council Directive 64/221/EEC and to the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning this directive, according to which an EU-citizen who has been deported from another EU-country has the same right to legal remedies against administrative actions as the citizens of the deporting country.This means that the person should at least have the possibility to initiate an appeal procedure before the decision on deportation is enforced and, in that way, postpone the deportation.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that A's deportation had been carried out in breach of Council Directive 64/221/EEC.It overturned the decisions of the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court and returned the matter to the former for a new consideration.Considering that the decision was overturned because of a procedural fault and noting the grounds presented for A's deportation, the Supreme Administrative Court, with reference to section 32-3 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, ordered that the overturned decision (prohibiting A from re-entering the country) was still to be complied with.The Court did not take a stand on the substantial conditions for A's deportation.

9.5.2003 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 27.11.2002

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

Reference: Report No. 3103; 1859/3/01

Reference to source

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

respect for private life, respect for family life, aliens, deported persons, deportation,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, deporterade personer, utvisning,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, karkotetut henkilöt, karkottaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 40-1-3 and 41-1 of the Aliens Act; section 5 of the Nationality Act

= utlänningslag 40 § 1 mom. 3 punkten, 41 § 1 mom.; medborgarskapslag 5 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 40 § 1 mom. 3 kohta, 41 § 1 mom.; kansalaisuuslaki 5 §.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The Directorate of Immigration had ordered that X, who was an alien, was to be deported and to be refused entry into Finland for five years.The administrative court had dismissed X's appeal.The Supreme Administrative Court granted X leave to appeal.

X had moved to Finland with his mother at the age of 7 in 1985.They were granted residence permits as X's mother was married to a Finnish citizen.Her husband had adopted X while they were abroad.The adoption was later confirmed by a Finnish court.X had a child with a Finnish citizen, and he shared the custody of the child with the child's mother, although he did not live with them.X had committed several offences, among them a serious drug offence.He had received treatment for his drug problem.

X had had permanent residence permit in Finland since 1993.Having had his habitual residence in Finland since he was a child, X had, by the time the Supreme Administrative Court considered his case, fulfilled the criteria for acquiring Finnish nationality by notification, in accordance with section 5 of the Nationality Act.When considering the circumstances of X's case in their entirety, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized the fact that X had lived in Finland since he was a child and had gone to school here.He had integrated himself into Finnish society and had no ties to his country of birth.The Court also noted that offences a person has committed do not form an obstacle to acquiring Finnish nationality when nationality is acquired on the basis of the fact that the person has lived in Finland for a long time since childhood.On these grounds, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered that X could not be deported.In its decision, the Court referred to the Aliens Act and to Article 8 of the ECHR.

9.5.2003 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

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,
respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, äktenskap, flyktingstatus,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, avioliitto, pakolaisen oikeusasema,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 19.2.2002

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

Reference: Report No. 356; 2180/3/01

Reference to source

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, children, best interests of the child, family reunification,
utlänningar, barn, barnets bästa, familjeåterförening,
ulkomaalaiset, lapset, lapsen etu, perheen yhdistäminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1c, 18b-1, 18c-1 and 18c-2 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 1c §, 18b § 1 mom., 18c § 1 och 2 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 1c §, 18b § 1 mom., 18c § 1 ja 2 mom.

CRC-3-1; CRC-7-1; CRC-10-1

Abstract

A had requested for asylum in Finland in 1991, but his application had been rejected and he had been deported to his home country in 1994.In his home country, A had a family with two children who were minors.A lived with his family during 1994-1995.In 1995, he married a Finnish citizen in his home country, was granted residence permit and moved to live in Finland.He received permanent residence permit in 1997.Having settled in Finland, he took action in his home country in order to establish his paternity and to register the children.The children were registered in 1998, and that same year A applied for a residence permit in Finland for the children on the basis of family reunification.In an interview at the Finnish embassy, the mother had agreed to it that the children should move to live with their father.She could not herself take care of the children, who were then living with their grandmother in poor conditions.The elder child, B, who at that time was 13 years of age, was heard and said that he wanted to move to live with the father.

The Directorate of Immigration rejected the application for residence permit made by A on behalf of B.It referred to section 18c of the Aliens Act and considered that there were weighty reasons against issuing the permit and that A and B did not have guaranteed means of support in Finland.The administrative court dismissed A's appeal, but the Supreme Administrative Court granted A leave to appeal.When the case was taken up by the Supreme Administrative Court, A informed the court that the grandmother had died and the children where living alone without any adult person to take care of them.The Supreme Administrative Court referred to Articles 3-1, 7-1 and 10-1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and noted that considering the circumstances in which the children were living in their home country, it was in their best interests that they should live with their father who resided permanently in Finland and could support his family as he was running a business of his own.The fact that B had lived separated from his father could not be regarded as a weighty reason against issuing the residence permit in the meaning intended by section 18c of the Aliens Act.The court concluded that the application for a residence permit could not be rejected on the grounds given in the decision of the Directorate of Immigration.It quashed the decisions of the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court and returned the matter to the Directorate of Immigration for a new consideration.

6.8.2003 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

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,
utlänningar, flyktingstatus, asyl,
ulkomaalaiset, pakolaisen oikeusasema, turvapaikka,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 30.10.2003

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

Reference: Report No. 2640; 1146/3/02

Reference to source

KHO 2003:73.

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. 287-291

Subject

aliens, children, asylum, refusal of entry,
utlänningar, barn, asyl, avvisning,
ulkomaalaiset, lapset, turvapaikka, käännyttäminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1c, 37, 38 and 39 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 1c §, 37 §, 38 §, 39 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1c §, 37 §, 38 §, 39 §.

CRC-3, CRC-7

Abstract

The administrative court had rejected the applications for asylum and residence permit made by spouses A and B and their child C.The Directorate of Immigration had made a decision to deport the family to their home country.The family appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.They claimed that in their home country they would face the risk of being persecuted on account of their nationality.In addition, the child C had been born in Finland and when the appeal was submitted, B was pregnant.The second child was born in Finland after the decision on deportation had been made.While the case was pending, the deportation was carried out.The family's counsel claimed that this was against the law, as the decision on deportation did not concern all members of the family.The Supreme Administrative Court did not grant leave to appeal as far as the applications for asylum and residence permit were concerned.However, it decided to consider the appeal against the decision on deportation.The Court noted that when making the decision on deportation, the Directorate of Immigration could not take into consideration the child who had not yet been born at that time.No separate application for asylum or residence permit had been submitted on behalf of the child.According to the Court, the position of a child who is born after a decision to deport the child's parents has been made has as such no effect when considering whether the parents are in need of asylum or international protection.It can be assumed that a newborn child travels together with his or her parents.If necessary, the police may provide the child with a separate travel document.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that it was possible to carry out the deportation of the family after the applications for asylum and residence permit had been rejected.Taking into account the valid travel documents of the family, it was also possible to deport the newborn child who travelled with his/her family.The deportation was thus not in violation of the Aliens Act or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

15.1.2004 / 2.3.2017 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 27.5.2003

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

Reference: Report No. 1292; 417/3/02

Reference to source

KHO 2003:28.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2003 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2003 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2003 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2005

Pages: pp. 284-290

Subject

respect for family life, aliens, residence permit, best interests of the child,
respekt för familjeliv, utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd, barnets bästa,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa, lapsen etu,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1c, 18b and 18c of the Aliens Act; sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 1c §, 18b § och 18c §; grundlagen 9 § och 10 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1c §, 18b § ja 18c §; perustuslaki 9 § ja 10 §.

ECHR-8; CRC-3; CRC-7; CRC-10

Abstract

A was married to a Finnish citizen C.From a previous marriage A had a child B who was a minor.The Directorate of Immigration had rejected their applications for a residence permit.According to the Aliens Act, as a spouse of a Finnish citizen A could have been issued a residence permit on the basis of a family tie.As B was not C's family member, as defined in the Aliens Act, B could be issued a residence permit only if B had guaranteed means of support.The Directorate of Immigration found that considering C's income this was not the case.It concluded that taking into account all the relevant circumstances in the matter and as B could not be issued a residence permit, A's residence permit should also be refused.The administrative court agreed with the decision and rejected the appeal made by C and B.The court also referred to the ECHR and noted that Article 8 did not guarantee a person a general right to receive a residence permit in the home country of his or her spouse.C appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court on behalf of B.The Supreme Administrative Court discussed both the Aliens Act, the ECHR and the CRC.Regarding Article 8 of the ECHR, the Court noted that Article 8 provides protection for genuine and close family life.It does not grant an alien a general right of residence in the home country of his or her spouse, nor does it guarantee a child a right to be issued a residence permit in the country where the child's parent is residing.However, Article 8 guarantees family reunification provided there are no specific grounds against it.The Court continued that the requirement of guaranteed means of support is not as such in conflict with Article 8 as it is possible to interfere with the right to family life in the interests of the economic well-being of the country.The Court then referred to the CRC and to the best interests of the child.The fact that B could not be issued a residence permit because B did not have guaranteed means of support could not alone be regarded as a weighty reason for refusing A's permit.In the Court's view, it should be considered in A's case whether the purpose of the marriage has been to lead genuine and close family life.Furthermore, B's ties to B's home country, other factors relating to the best interests of the child as well as their possible effect in considering A's residence permit had to be taken into account.As far as B's residence permit was concerned, the Court found that the requirement of guaranteed means of support could not supersede the obligations under the CRC.The Court then concluded that, in this case it should be assessed whether it is in B's best interests to follow A and whether one in that case has to deviate from the requirement of guaranteed means of support.On the other hand, if B's family ties are mainly in B's home country it must be considered whether it is in B's best interests that A's residence permit is refused.The case was returned to the Directorate of Immigration for a new consideration.

21.4.2004 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 5.9.2003

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

Reference: Report No. 2034; 2040/3/02

Reference to source

KHO 2003:58.

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. 173-179

Subject

respect for family life, family reunification, aliens, residence permit,
respekt för familjeliv, familjeåterförening, utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, perheen yhdistäminen, ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 18b and 18c of the Aliens Act; section 10-1 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 18b § och 18c §; grundlagen 10 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 18b § ja 18c §; perustuslaki 10 § 1 mom.

ECHR-8; general references to the CCPR, CESCR, CRC and UDHR

Abstract

A had been issued a residence permit in Finland on the basis of need of protection.On A's application, the Directorate of Immigration had granted A's parents B and C residence permits on the basis of a family tie, but had rejected the application for residence permits submitted on behalf of A's brothers X and Y and sister Z.When A submitted the applications, both A, the brothers and sister were minors, but by the time the Directorate of Immigration made its decision, they had all reached the age of majority (in Finland 18 years).A appealed to the administrative court which decided the case on the basis of the Aliens Act.Section 18b of the Aliens Act defines a "family member" as a spouse, an unmarried child of under 18 years of age and, in case of a minor, his or her guardian.According to section 18c, a family member of an alien residing in Finland with a residence permit issued on the basis of refuge or need of protection shall be issued a residence permit unless there are reasons relating to public order or safety or other weighty reasons against it.X, Y and Z were not A's family members as defined in the Aliens Act.When the parents were granted their residence permits, X, Y and Z had already reached the age of 18 years.Another relative than a family member may be issued a residence permit only on grounds specified in section 18c-3 of the Act.With reference to section 18c-3, the administrative court concluded that refusing a residence permit would not be unreasonable as it could not be considered that the persons in question intended to continue their earlier close family life in Finland or that X, Y and Z would be fully dependent on a person residing in Finland.The decision of the Directorate of Immigration was not amended.The Supreme Administrative Court rejected A's appeal.In the appeal, A referred to Article 8 of the ECHR and generally to the UDHR, CCPR, CESCR and CRC.The Supreme Administrative Court does not discuss these human rights instruments in its decision.

21.4.2004 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 3.11.2003

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

Reference: Report No. 2677; 2827/3/02

Reference to source

KHO 2003:75.

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. 303-313

Subject

respect for family life, family reunification, aliens,
respekt för familjeliv, familjeåterförening, utlänningar,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, perheen yhdistäminen, ulkomaalaiset,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1c-1, 18b-1 and 18c-1 of the Aliens Act

= utlänningslag 1c § 1 mom., 18b § 1 mom. och 18c § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 1c § 1 mom., 18b § 1 mom. ja 18c § 1 mom.

ECHR-8; CRC-3-1; CRC-7-1; CRC-10

Abstract

C had come to Finland from Turkey in 1991.He married a Finn and obtained a permanent residence permit in 1996.He acquired Finnish citizenship in 1999.While C was in Finland his children from a previous relationship were in the care of his relatives in Turkey.In 2000, C applied for residence permit on behalf of his children on the basis of a family tie but the Directorate of Immigration and the administrative court rejected the application.When the case reached the Supreme Administrative Court, the application only concerned two of the children who were minors.The Supreme Administrative Court based its decision on the Aliens Act, the ECHR and the CRC.It also referred to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of P.R. v. the Netherlands (decision of 7 November 2000, inadmissible).The Court noted that C had been issued a residence permit on the basis of his marriage, not on the basis of refuge or need of protection.He had resided in Finland for several years but had not previously tried to lead a family life with his children in Finland.In the Court's view, C's separation from his children was based on his voluntary and conscious choice.In addition, the children's family ties and cultural ties were entirely concentrated in Turkey.C had been sending money on a regular basis to Turkey for the subsistence of the children.He had visited the children in Turkey twice and had kept in contact with them by correspondence and telephone.However, the Supreme Administrative Court found that this did not show that there was genuine and close family life between C and the children, as intended under Article 8 of the ECHR.With reference to the fact that the ECHR does not guarantee an immigrant the right to choose the most suitable place to lead family life, the Court concluded that there were weighty reasons against issuing the residence permits and rejected A's appeal.One member of the Supreme Administrative Court would have allowed the application on behalf of one child who had not reached the age of majority before the Court's decision.This member of the Court also referred to the ECHR and the CRC.

21.4.2004 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 17.12.2003

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

Reference: Report No. 3240; 1612/3/02

Reference to source

KHO 2003:92.

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. 485-492

Subject

respect for family life, best interests of the child, family reunification, aliens, residence permit,
respekt för familjeliv, barnets bästa, familjeåterförening, utlänningar, uppehållstillstånd,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, lapsen etu, perheen yhdistäminen, ulkomaalaiset, oleskelulupa,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1c, 18b and 18c of the Aliens Act; section 9 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 1c §, 18b § och 18c §; grundlagen 9 §

= ulkomaalaislaki 1c §, 18b § ja 18c §; perustuslaki 9 §.

ECHR-8; CRC-7-1; CRC-10

Abstract

A had been granted residence permit in Finland on the basis of a family tie as A's sister had sought asylum and now resided in Finland.A was married to B who had also left his country of nationality and resided in another country.A and B had three children who had all been born in Finland.A applied for a residence permit on B's behalf on the basis of a family tie.The Directorate of Immigration rejected the application on the grounds that B did not have guaranteed means of support in Finland.A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.The Supreme Administrative Court referred to section 1c of the Aliens Act (best interests of the child), Article 8 of the ECHR and Articles 7-1 and 10 of the CRC.It found that considering all the relevant circumstances in the case, the requirement for guaranteed means of support as provided for in the Aliens Act could not supersede the relevant human rights provisions in this case.The bests interests of the children required that the family is unified in Finland where the children have lived since their birth.The matter was returned to the Directorate of Immigration for a new consideration.

21.4.2004 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI