Date when decision was rendered: 7.7.2017

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

Reference: Report no. 324/4/17; 3418

Reference to source

KHO 2017:120.

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

asylum, aliens, homosexuality, sexual orientation, oral hearing,
asyl, utlänning, homosexualitet, sexuell orientering, muntligt förfarande,
turvapaikka, ulkomaalaiset, homoseksuaalisuus, seksuaalinen suuntautuminen, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87, 87b, 88 and 147 of the Aliens Act; sections 33, 37 and 38 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

= utlänningslag 87 §, 87b §, 88 § och 147 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 37 § och 38 §; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar och personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddbehövande, och för innebörden i det beviljade skyddet artikel 4

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 §, 87b §, 88 § ja 147 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 37 § ja 38 §; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällölle artikla 4

Abstract

X, from Gambia, had applied asylum based on fear of persecution on grounds of his sexual orientation.The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the application.The administrative court upheld the decision.X had requested an oral hearing before the administrative court but the court held that an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary and the matter could be decided relying on the documents presented as well as available country information.X appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that according to country reports, persons belonging to sexual minorities in Gambia have been subjected to discrimination and physical violence.Therefore, it is important to assess the credibility of the declared sexual orientation of an asylum applicant from Gambia, when the application is based on a fear of persecution on grounds of that sexual orientation.Both the Immigration Service and the administrative court had found that X's sexual orientation had not been proven.X's description of the development of his sexual identity had been very limited and he had given contradictory information in his statements.The Immigration Service and the administrative court had also held that the credibility of X's statements was diminished by the fact that he had not referred to his homosexuality as an asylum ground in the initial asylum interview conducted by the police and had only done so at a later stage, in the asylum interview at the Immigration Service.X claimed that at the time of the initial interview he had been unwell and had been receiving hospital treatment.Some two weeks after the initial interview, X's councel had submitted to the Immigration Service a written statement in which X claimed international protection on the grounds of his sexual orientation.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that while the applicant has a duty to submit as soon as possible all the elements needed to substantiate the application, in X's circumstances, the fact that he had not referred to his homosexuality in the initial interview could not be regarded as decisive when assessing the credibility of his statements.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the applicant's own testimony is the primary and often the only source of evidence when assessing the credibility of declared sexual orientation.In an oral hearing it would have been possible to seek more clarification concerning the formation of X's sexual identity, and whether and how he has expressed his sexual identity in his home country and whether there have been any adverse consequences.Therefore, an oral hearing, as requested by X, had not been manifestly unnecessary, in the meaning of section 38 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.The Supreme Administrative Court referred the case back to the administrative court, for an oral hearing and a reconsideration of the matter.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13, A et al.), concerning the interpretation of the Qualification Directive in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the assessment of facts and circumstances concerning the declared sexual orientation of an asylum applicant, whose application is based on a fear of persecution on grounds of that sexual orientation.The court also referred to the judgment (19 April 2016) of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.N. v.France, and its own previous decisions KHO 2016:174 (sexual orientation) and KHO 2017:63 (religious affiliation).

7.5.2018 / 7.5.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 13.4.2018

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

Reference: Report no. 3891/4/17; 1762

Reference to source

KHO 2018:52.

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

asylum, aliens, homosexuality, sexual orientation,
asyl, utlänning, homosexualitet, sexuell orientering,
turvapaikka, ulkomaalaiset, homoseksuaalisuus, seksuaalinen suuntautuminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 7-2. 87-1, 87b-4, 87b-5, 88-1 and 147 of the Aliens Act; sections 33, 42 and 51-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted; Article 46-1-a of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

= utlänningslag 7 § 2 mom., 87 § 1 mom., 87b § 4 och 5 mom., 88 § 1 mom. och 147 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 42 § och 51 § 1 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationellt skydd, för enhetlig status för flyktingar eller personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddsbehövande, och för innebörden i det beviljade skyddet artikel 4; Europaparlamentets och rädets direktiv 2013/32/EU om gemensamma förfaranden för att bevilja och återkalla internationellt skydd artikel 46-1-a

= ulkomaalaislaki 7 § 2 mom., 87 § 1 mom., 87b § 4 ja 5 mom., 88 § 1 mom. ja 147 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 42 § ja 51 § 1 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällölle artikla 4; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2013/32/EU kansainvälisen suojelun myöntämistä tai poistamista koskevista yhteisistä menettelyistä 46 artikla 1 kohta a alakohta.

Articles 1 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X, who was from Baghdad, Iraq, had applied for asylum based on a fear of persecution on grounds of his sexual orientation.The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the application, and X appealed against the decision to the administrative court.The court noted that various recent country reports had documented violence against homosexuals in Iraq.X was also heard in an oral hearing before the administrative court.However, the court found that X's statements concerning his homosexuality were not credible.There were inconsistencies and contradictions and X had also repeatedly changed his statements.The court rejected X's appeal.

When appealing to the Supreme Administrative Court X submitted as evidence a photograph and a video recording of intimate acts between himself and another man.In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court assessed the admissibility of such evidence.The court referred to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13, A et al.; and C-473/16, F), concerning the interpretation of the Qualification Directive in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the limits imposed on national authorities when assessing the facts and circumstances concerning the declared sexual orientation of an asylum applicant, whose application is based on a fear of persecution on grounds of that sexual orientation.With reference also to the UNHCR guidelines, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant's own testimony is the primary source of evidence.A court cannot require applicants to provide photographs or video recordings of intimate acts ins support of their application for asylum based on a fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation.Such evidence would of its nature infringe human dignity and the right to private life, even in cases where the persons had voluntarily agreed to being filmed.

Regarding admissibility of evidence, the Supreme Administrative Court then noted that in the national administrative procedure, free evaluation of evidence is the general rule.The way evidence is presented has not been restricted, and there are no detailed rules concerning analysis on the probative value of evidence.However, submitting photographs or video recordings of intimate acts as evidence is problematic with regard to the protection of human dignity and the right to private life.The Supreme Administrative Court, nevertheless, found that because of the theory of free evaluation of evidence and the protection of the procedural rights of the applicant, the court could not completely refuse to accept such evidence when submitted at the applicant's own initiative and in order to support his claim for international protection.The Supreme Administrative Court emphasised that the main issue was the assessment of the credibility of the applicant's statements concerning his declared sexual orientation and sexual identity, not the practice of homosexual acts.In this case the credibility assessment was based on the applicant's statements made in the various stages of the application process and in the oral hearing before the administrative court.The photograph and video recording could not undermine the finding that there were inconsistences and contradictions in the applicant's statements.Such material had no role in the assessment and it did not thus support the applicant's claim for international protection.The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court and dismissed X's appeal.

7.5.2018 / 5.10.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.9.2017

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

Reference: Report no. 4072/4/16; 4639

Reference to source

KHO 2017:148.

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

asylum, aliens, homosexuality, sexual orientation, oral hearing,
asyl, utlänning, homosexualitet, sexuell orientering, muntligt förfarande,
turvapaikka, ulkomaalaiset, homoseksuaalisuus, seksuaalinen suuntautuminen, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87-1, 87a-1, 87b, 88-1, 88a-1, 88e and 147 of the Aliens Act; sections 33, 37-1 and 38-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; Article 4 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted; Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

= utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 87a § 1 mom., 87b §, 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88e § och 147 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 37 § 1 mom. och 38 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/95/EU om normer för när tredjelandsmedborgare eller statslösa personer ska anses berättigade till internationell skydd, för en enhetlig status för flyktingar och personer som uppfyller kraven för att betecknas som subsidiärt skyddsbehövande, och för innebörden i det beviljade skyddet artikel 4; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2013/32/EU om gemensamma förfaranden för att bevilja och återkalla internationellt skydd artikel 46

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 87a § 1 mom., 87b §, 88 § 1 mom., 88a § 1 mom., 88e § ja 147 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 37 § 1 mom. ja 38 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Euroopan parlamenting ja neuvoston direktiivi 2011/95/EU vaatimuksista kolmansien maiden kansalaisten ja kansalaisuudettomien henkilöiden määrittelemiseksi kansainvälistä suojelua saaviksi henkilöiksi, pakolaisten ja henkilöiden, jotka voivat saada toissijaista suojelua, yhdenmukaiselle asemalle sekä myönnetyn suojan sisällölle 4 artikla; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2013/32/EU kansainvälisen suojelun myöntämistä tai poistamista koskevista yhteisistä menettelyistä 46 artikla.

ECHR-3; Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X, from Iraq, had applied for asylum in Finland.He claimed he was persecuted by religious fundamentalists in Iraq because of his profession as a musician and because of his liberal lifestyle.X told he had received threatening letters in which his lifestyle had been criticized and in which he was accused of "being like a homosexual".In the asylum interview X admitted that the accusations concerning his lifestyle were true but he denied being a homosexual.The Finnish Immigration Service rejected X's application.In his appeal to the administrative court, X claimed that in Iraq he would be subjected to persecution because of his sexual orientation.The court found that X's statements were contradictory and that the credibility of his statements was diminished by the fact that he had not referred to his homosexuality as an asylum ground in the asylum interview and had only done so later, in the proceedings before the administrative court.X had requested an oral hearing, bu the administrative court held, with reference to section 38 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, that an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary in this case.

On X's appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court considered both the credibility of X's statements and the necessity of an oral hearing.The court noted that recent country reports on Iraq had documented that persons belonging to sexual minorities had been subjected to physical violence, discrimination and honour killings.Therefore, it could not be excluded that X could be in need of international protection on grounds of his sexual orientation.The court then noted that, as a rule, it is the duty of an asylum applicant to submit all the elements needed to substantiate the application already when submitting the application.The credibility of any new elements, submitted in support of the application later before a court, is assessed on a case-by-case basis.Although in this case X had not referred to his homosexuality as an asylum ground in his asylum application and had in the asylum interview denied being a homosexual, he had explained in the administrative court his reasons for doing so.Before the Supreme Administrative Court, X had further elaborated on his reasons and had also submitted to the court additional information concerning his personal life and intimate relations.The Supreme Administrative Court found that the fact that X had not disclosed his sexual orientation in the asylum interview did not alone give reason to conclude that X's account lacked credibility.Also, the fact that X had in the asylum interview denied being homosexual could not be regarded as decisive when assessing the credibility of X's sexual orientation later during the process.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the applicant's own testimony is the primary and often the only source of evidence when assessing the credibility of declared sexual orientation.In an oral hearing before the administrative court it would have been possible to seek more clarification concerning the formulation of X's sexual identity, and whether and how he has expressed his sexual identity in his home country and whether there have been any adverse consequences.Therefore, an oral hearing had not been manifestly unnecessary.The Supreme Administrative Court referred the case back to the administrative court, for an oral hearing and a reconsideration of the matter.

In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13, A et al.), concerning the interpretation of the Qualification Directive in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the assessment of facts and circumstances concerning the declared sexual orientation of an asylum applicant, whose application is based on a fear of persecution on grounds of that sexual orientation.The court also referred to the inadmissibility decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.N. v France, concerning alleged risk of ill-treatment of a homosexual man in the event of his being returned to his home couhtry Senegal.The human righte court held that national authorities can best assess the credibility of an applicant's account when they can see and hear the applicant.The applicant had in this case been heard both in the first instance and in the appeal court and both instances had found his account implausible.

3.7.2018 / 4.7.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 15.6.2018

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

Reference: Report no. 894/4/18; 2886

Reference to source

KHO 2018:90.

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 justitieminiesteriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

asylum, aliens, homosexuality, sexual orientation, oral hearing,
asyl, utlänning, homosexualitet, sexuell orientering, muntligt förfarande,
turvapaikka, ulkomaalaiset, homoseksuaalisuus, seksuaalinen suuntautuminen, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 87-1, 87a-1, 87b, 88-1, 101 and 147 of the Aliens Act; sections 33, 37-1 and 38-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

= utlänningslag 87 § 1 mom., 87a § 1 mom., 87b §, 88 § 1 mom., 101 § och 147 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 37 § 1 mom. och 38 § 1 mom.; Europaparlementets och rådets direktiv 2013/32/EU om gemensamma förfaranden för att bevilja och återkalla internationellt skydd artikel 46

= ulkomaalaislaki 87 § 1 mom., 87a § 1 mom., 87b §, 88 § 1 mom., 101 § ja 147 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 37 § 1 mom. ja 38 § 1 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2013/32/EU kansainvälisen suojelun myöntämistä ja poistamista koskevista yhteisistä menettelyistä 46 artikla.

ECHR-3; Articles 1 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

The Finnish Immigration Service had rejected X's asylum application as manifestly unfounded and had ordered that X is returned to his home country Iraq.X filed a new asylum application, this time referring to his homosexuality as an asylum ground.The Immigration Service found that the application lacked credibility and was manifestly unfounded.The administrative court upheld the decision.The Immigration Service had not admitted as evidence a video recording which X had submitted and which according to him showed intimate acts between himself and another man.With reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of A et al.(C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13), also the administrative court found this type of evidence inadmissible as infringing human dignity, guaranteed in Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.X requested an oral hearing, but the administrative court held, with reference to section 38 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, that an oral hearing was manifeslty unnecessary in this case.

Based on recent country reports on Iraq, the Supreme Administrative Court found that it could not be excluded that X could be in need of international protection on grounds of his sexual orientation.Therefore, assessing the credibility of X's statements concerning his homosexuality was of major importance.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that, as a rule, it is the duty of an asylum applicant to submit all the elements needed to substantiate the application already when submitting the application.The credibility of any new elements, submitted in support of the application later in the process, is assessed on a case-by-case basis.The applicant's own testimony is the primary and often the only source of evidence when assessing the credibility of declared sexual orientation.The court held that, because of the theory of free evaluation of evidence and the protection of the procedural rights of the applicant, video recordings of sexual behaviour can be admitted as evidence (see KHO 2018:52 of 13 April 2018).However, the value of such recordings as evidence is limited, as compared to the assessment of the applicant's own testimony.In this case, X had explained why he had not declared his homosexuality when filing his first asylum application.He had also submitted additional information to the Supreme Administrative Court and had told the court he was currently in a relationship with a man who was willing to appear as a witness.The court found that the fact that X had not disclosed his sexual orientation in his first asylum application did not alone give reason to conclude that X's account lacked credibility.

Regarding the question of oral hearing, the Supreme Administrative Court took note of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Moussa Sacko (C-348/16), in which the CJEU held that the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting a manifestly unfounded application for international protection can dismiss the appeal without hearing the applicant, provided that the decision in the first instance was based on full examination of the facts and law and the applicant was heard.The Supreme Administrative Court also referred to the inadmissibility decision (19 April 2016) of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A.N. v France, concerning alleged ill-treatment of a homosexual man in the event of his being returned to his home country Senegal.The human rights court held that national authorities can best assess the credibility of an applicant's account when they can see and hear the applicant, and that the applicant had been heard both in the first instance and the appeal court and both instances had found his account lacked credibiity.

In the present case, X had requested an oral hearing before the administrative court, in order to give more information about his sexual orientation and the situation of homosexuals in Iraq.He had also referred to the video recording as evidence.The administrative court had considered it possible that X had been involved in homosexual acts, but had found X's account of his declared sexual orientation perfunctory and implausible.The court had also not admitted the video recording as evidence.The Supreme Administrative Court found that in an oral hearing before the administrative court it would have been possible to seek more clarification concerning the formation of X's sexual identity, and whether and how he has expressed his sexual identity in his home country and whether there have been any adverse consequences.It would also have been possible to assess the relevance of the video recording as evidence.The court concluded that the credibility of X's testimony could not have been reliably assessed without giving him the opportunity to be heard before the administrative court.When considering an applicant's request for an oral hearing in order to assess the applicant's credibility, the fact that the application has been found manifestly unfouded in the first instance is not decisive.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the administrative court and referred the case back to the administrative court for an oral hearing and a reconsideratin of the matter.

6.7.2018 / 6.7.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 8.1.2021

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

Reference: Report no. 7; 959/1/20

Reference to source

KHO:2021:2.

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, effective remedy,
utlänning, asyl, effektiva rättsmedel,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, tehokas oikeussuojakeino,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 95a-1, 95c, 102-1, 102-3, 104-4 and 198a of the Aliens Act; Articles 18 and 19-3 of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Dublin III); Articles 2-q, 28, 46-1 and 46-11 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

= utlänningslag 95 a § 1 mom., 95 c §, 102 § 1 och 3 mom., 104 § 4 punkten och 198 a §; Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) nr 604/2013 om kriterier och mekanismer for att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som är ansvarig för att pröva en ansökan om internationellt skydd som en tredjelandsmedborgare eller en statslös person har lämnat in i någon medlemsstat artikel 18 och artikel 19-3; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2013/32/EU om gemensamma förfaranden för att bevilja och återkalla internationellt skydd artikel 2-q, artikel 28, artikel 46-1, artikel 46-11

= ulkomaalaislaki 95 a § 1 mom., 95 c §, 102 § 1 ja 3 mom., 104 § 4 kohta ja 198 a §; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetus (EU) no. 604/2013 kolmannen maan kansalaisen tai kansalaisuudettoman henkilön johonkin jäsenvaltioon jättämän kansainvälistä suojelua koskevan hakemuksen käsittelystä vastuussa olevan jäsenvaltion määrittämisperusteiden ja -menettelyjen vahvistamisesta (Dublin III) 18 artikla, 19 artikla 3 kohta; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2013/32/EU kansainvälisen suojelun myöntämistä ja poistamista koskevista yhteisistä menettelyistä 2 artikla q alakohta, 28 artikla, 46 artikla 1 ja 11 kohta.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

The Finnish Immigration Service had rejected A's asylum application.While A's appeal against the decision was pending before an administrative court, A disappeared.When A had been missing for over two months, the administrative court decided that A's appeal had lapsed.Several months later, A was transferred from Germany to Finland, based on the Dublin III Regulation.He then reapplied for asylum in Finland.The Finnish Immigration Service treated the second application as a subsequent application and found it inadmissible on grounds that it did not include any new elements or findings, which would significantly add to the likelihood of A qualifying as a beneficiary of international protection.Following A's appeal, the administrative court ruled that A had not had an effective remedy in court.Because A's appeal against the negative asylum decision had lapsed, there was no final decision on his first application, and his second application had been found inadmissible.The court returned the matter to the Immigration Service for a new consideration on the grounds for protection.The Immigration Service appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court discussed the right to an effective remedy and the principle of effectiveness in cases where an applicant for international protection has withdrawn or abandoned his or her remedy.The Finnish Immigration Service had examined A's first application and had rejected it.A had appealed against the negative asylum decision to an administrative court.He had thus had the right to an effective remedy before a court, in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive (Article 46) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 47) and as required by the Dublin III Regulation (Article 18(2)).Article 47 of the Charter requires only that an applicant for international protection, whose application has been refused, should be able to enforce his rights effectively before a court.Article 46 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, does not establish common procedural standards.However, procedural rules shall not be such as to render exercise of rights deriving from EU law impossible or excessively difficult.

According to the Aliens Act (section 198a), an administrative court or the Supreme Administrative Court may decide that an appeal concerning international protection lapses if the appellant has left Finland voluntarily without any measures taken by authorities.Having lodged his appeal A had disappeared for months.Therefore, the administrative court could determine that A's appeal lapses.Following this, the decision by the Finnish Immigration Service became final.

According to the Aliens Act (section 102), a subsequent application can be submitted if the applicant has received a final decision made by the Finnish Immigration Service or an administrative court concerning his or her previous application and while the applicant still resides in the country, or has left the county but only for a short period of time.The Supreme Administrative Court referred to recital 36 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, which states that it would be disproportionate to oblige Member States to carry out a new full examination procedure where an applicant makes a subsequent application without presenting new evidence or arguments.The court held that the definition of a 'shor period of time' varies, depending on the circumstances of the case.In assessing the passage of time, the admission and readmission procedures and the time limits laid down in the Dublin III Regulation must be taken into account.In this case, A had left Finland for a period of over a year.His Dublin transfer to Finland had been postponed, because he had fled from the German authorities.The court concluded that under the circumstances in this case, A could be considered to have left Finland for a short period of time, in the meaning of the Aliens Act.His second application could be handled as a subsequent application.The Supreme Administrative Court referred the case back to the administrative court for consideration of A's appeal.

3.7.2023 / 4.7.2023 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 26.10.2022

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

Reference: Report no. H3074; 21936/2020

Reference to source

KHO:2022:121.

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, effective remedy, appeal, best interests of the child, respect for family life,
utlänning, asyl, effektiva rättsmedel, ändringssökande, barnets bästa, respekt för familjeliv,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, tehokas oikeussuojakeino, muutoksenhaku, lapsen etu, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 6-1, 146-1 and 147 of the Aliens Act; section 7-1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; preamble paragraphs 22 and 24 and Article 5 of Directive 2008/113/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals

= utlänningslag 6 § 1 mom., 146 § 1 mom., 147 §; lag om rättegäng i förvaltningsärenden 7 § 1 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2008/115/EG om gemensamma normer och förfaranden för återvändande av tredjelandsmedborgare som vistas olagligt i medlemsstaterna inledning 22 och 24 § och artikel 5

= ulkomaalaislaki 6 § 1 mom., 146 § 1 mom., 147 §; laki oikeudenkäynnistä hallintoasioissa 7 § 1 mom.; Euroopan parlamenting ja neuvoston direktiivi 2008/115/EY jäsenvaltioissa sovellettavista yhteisistä vaatimuksista ja menettelyistä laittomasti oleskelevien kolmansien maiden kansalaisten palauttamiseksi johdanto 22 ja 24 kohta ja 5 artikla.

ECHR-8; CRC-3-1; Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

An Iraqi asylum seeker (A) had sought international protection in Finland in 2015.The Immigration Service rejected the application in 2016 and denied A stay in the country.The administrative court upheld the decision in 2017.While A's asylum application was pending, he married an Iraqi woman who had already been granted asylum in Finland.The couple had a child in 2016.A then applied for international protection for the second time in 2017.The decision was again negative and A was denied stay in the country.In 2020, the administrative court rejected his appeal.A's spouse and child also appealed to the administrative court against the decision by which A's stay in Finland wad denied.The court ruled the appeal inadmissible.As regards the right to appeal against an administrative decision, the court held that an appellant's spouse or minor child could not be considered as a person whom a decision concerns, or whose right, obligation or interest is directly affected by the decision, as provided for in section 7 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (808/2019(.A, his spouse and child applied for leave to appeal from the Supreme Administrative Court.By a provisional decision in 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court stayed the execution of the decision on the denial of stay, pending the count's decision on the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the CRC as well as the European Court of Human Rights in its case law confirm the primacy of the best interests of the child in all decisions concerning children.The court also referred to the Return Directive 2008/115/EC, which states that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing the directive, and in the case law of the CJEU (C-112/20; ECLI:EU:C:2021:197), in which the directive's provisions were read in conjunction with Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamenral Rights.Also, according to section 146 of the Aliens Act (301/2004), when considering refusal of entry, denial of admittance or stay, deportation or an entry ban and the duration of the entry ban, particular attention shall be paid to the best interests of the child and the protection of family life.The Supreme Administrative Court found that the protection of family life, as guaranteed in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be kept in mind when assessing whether a decision on denial of stay can be regarded as having an immediate effect on the right or interest of the appellant's spouse or child.The protection of the right to family life and the best interests of the child would diminish to a considerable extent, if the appellant's spouse or minor child could not have the decision denying the appellant's stay in the country reviewed by a court.This also concerns the spouse and minor child of a third-country national.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the administrative court had not assessed the protection of family life and the best interest of the child when reviewing the decision by which the appellant was denied stay in the country.However, the Supreme Administrative Court did not eventually rule on the denial of stay or the application for leave to appeal.While the case was pending, the circumstances had changed.The appellant's spouse and child had acquired Finnish citizenship in 2021, and the appellant had been granted a fixed-term residence permit (valid until 2026) as a spouse of a Finnish citizen.

4.7.2023 / 4.7.2023 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 9.8.2018

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

Reference: Report no. 5026/4/17; 3712

Reference to source

KHO 2018:109.

Electronic database for the decision 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, deportation, oral hearing,
utlänning, utvisning, muntligt förfarande,
ulkomaalaiset, karkottaminen, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

section 5 of the Aliens Act; sections 31, 44 and 45 of the Administrative Procedure Act; sections 33, 34 and 38 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; sections 11-2 and 24-1-9 of the Act on the Openness of GOvernment Activities; sections 8, 9 and 18 of the Act on the Publicity of Administrative Court Proceedings; sections 12-2 and 21-2 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 5 §; förvaltningslag 31 §, 44 § och 45 §; förvaltningsprocesslag 33 §, 34 § och 38 §; lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 11 § 2 mom. och 24 § 1 mom. 9 punkten; lag om offentlighet vid rättegång i förvaltningsdomstolar 8 §, 9 § och 18 §; grundlagen 12 § 2 mom. och 21 § 2 mom.

= ulkomsslsidlski 5 §; hallintolaki 31 §, 44 § ja 45 §; hallintolainkäyttölaki 33 §, 34 § ja 38 §; laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 11 § 2 mom. ja 24 § 1 mom. 9 kohta; laki oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta hallintotuomioistuimissa 8 §, 9 § ja 18 §; perustuslkai 12 § 2 mom. ja 21 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-1; ECHR-8; ECHR-13; ECHRP-7-1

Abstract

X was a Turkish citizen with a permanent residence permit in Finland.In 2012, X was sentenced to eight years and six months of imprisonment in Sweden for attempted murder.He was transferred to Finland to serve his sentence.Having received a statement from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (Supo), the Finnish Immigration Service decided in 2016 that X is to be deported to Turkey, because there were grounds to suspect that he may engage in activities that endanger Finland's national security.X appealed to the administrative court, which upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.The court heard Supo's representative in closed proceedings concerning the grounds for Supo's statement.The court held that because of a very important public interest, Supo's statement and the facts upon which it was based could not be disclosed, and even in his position as a party to the case, X could not be granted access to these documents.The court denied X's request for an oral hearing as being manifestly unnecessary, within the meaning of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.Instead, X was given the possibility to submit additional documentary evidence.

The key question before the Supreme Administrative Court was whether X's request for an oral hearing and access to Supo's statement could be rejected by the administrative court.In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court discussed the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (e.g., the case of Regner v the Czech Republic, 19 September 2017; Kaushal et al. v Bulgaria, 2 September 2010; and Ljatifi v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 17 May 2018).It also referred to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (4 June 2013).Based on this case law review, the Supreme Administrative Court noted, e.g., that a court should strike a fair balance between individual rights and the interests of public order and safety.It must carry out an independent examination of all the facts the authorities have relied on when claiming that public order and public safety are at stake.In order to ensure compliance with the adversarial principle, the individual must be able to challenge the authorities' assertion.If a party in the case cannot be granted access to all trial materials, any negative effects of that limitation of the right of access should be minimized in the court proceedings.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the administrative court had not heard X in connection with the hearing of Supo or thereafter.The possibility to submit additional documentary evidence could not be regarded as a measure which would guarantee adversarial proceedings, particularly, when X was lacking even ouline knowledge of the contets of Supo's statement.The administrative court had briefly reviewed parties' right of access to documents in the Immigration Service proceedings, but had not assessed X's procedural rights at the appeals stage.In its decision, the administrative court did not discuss the right to an effetive remedy, as provided for in Article 13 of the ECHR.It had not taken into account that when the decision on X's deportation was made, he was lawfully residing in Finland and the procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens, provided for in Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR, were thus applicable.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that although the administrative court had found that all information submitted by Supo in the case was confidential snd not accessible to X even as a party to the case, it should, nevertheless, have provided X with the right to be heard and the right to have examined witnesses, at least those which he had himself presented.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the administrative court had a duty to try to diminish any negative effects of the limitation of a party's right of access to trial documents.To that end, a written hearing had not been sufficient in this case, and a written hearing alone had not given X an adequate opportunity to submit reasons against his deportation.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that X's oral hearing could not be considered manifestly unnecessary, particularly when taking into account the procedural rights guaranteed in Article 13 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the administrative court and referred the matter back to the lower court, for a new oral hearing in which X has the opportunity to be heard and to have examined at least his own witnesses.It also ordered the administrative court to consider the facts upon which Supo's statment was based and to make an independent assessment as to whether these facts can to some degree be disclosed to X as a party to the case, taking particularly into account X's procedural rights.

23.10.2023 / 25.10.2023 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 20.1.2020

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

Reference: Report no. 132; 2952/1/18

Reference to source

KHO 2020:4.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX database 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-oi9keuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

aliens, asylum, access to documents, national security, effective remedy,
utlänning, asyl, allmänna handlingars offentlighet, nationell säkerhet, effektiva rättsmedel,
ulkomaalaiset, turvapaikka, asiakirjojen julkisuus, kansallinen turvallisuus, tehokas oikeussuojakeino,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1-1, 3, 9-1, 10, 11, 22 and 24 of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities; section 12-2 of the Constitution Act; Articles 1, 10-3, 12-1 and 23 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

= lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet 1 § 1 mom., 3 §, 9 § 1 mom., 10 §, 11 §, 22 § och 24 §; grundlagen 12 § 2 mom.; Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2013/32/EU om gemensamma förfatanden för att bevilja och återkalla internationellt skydd artikel 1, artikel 10 3 punkten, artikel 12 1 punkten och artikel 23

= laki viranomaistoiminnan julkisuudesta 1 § 1 mom., 3 §, 9 § 1 mom., 10 §, 11 §, 22 § ja 24 §; perustuslaki 12 § 2 mom.; Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivi 2013/32/EU kansainvälisen suojelun myöntämistä ja poistamista koskevista yhteisistä menettelyistä 1 artikla, 10 artikla 3 kohta, 12 artikla 1 kohta ja 23 artikla.

ECHR-13

Abstract

The Immigration Service had rejected A's asylum application.The decision was based on a statement submitted by the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (Supo).For the purpose of an appeal against the negative asylum decision, A's counsel requested from Supo access to the statement as well as the reasoning and materials upon which the statement was based.Supo submitted the statement but denied access to the rest of the documents on grounds of national security.Following A's appeal, the administrative court upheld Supo's decision.In the Supreme Administrative Court, A claimed a violation of the right to an effective remedy in the pending asylum appeal process, due to not having access to all Supo's documents upon which the negative decision by the Immigration Service was based.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to its previous rulings (KHO 2007:47-49; KHO 2018:109) and noted that it is apparent from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that confidential material which is not disclosed to a party on national security grounds is not as such in violation of the ECHR.However, in such a case a competent court must have the opportunity to review the material in order to assess whether it can be deemed confidential and whether there are sufficient grounds to the conclusions drawn on the basis of the material which the party has not had access to.A court shall consider whether there is a just balance between individual rights on the one hand and public order and national security on the other.

Based on the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, A, as an appellant in the asylum process, shall have the right of access to the contents also of a document which is not in the public domain, if the document may influence or may have influenced the consideration of the appellant's matter.However, this right is not without limitations.According to the Act, a party, his or her representative or counsel shall not have the right of access to a document, access to which would be contrary to a very important public interest.The Supreme Administrative Court reviewed the relevant documents and confirmed that the reasoning and materials upon which Supo's statement was based were confidential as provided for in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, and it was not obvious that access to these documents would not compromise state security.

A also referred to the Common Procedures Directive which states that applicants and their legal adviser shall have access to information provided by experts, where the determining authority has taken that informaion into consideration when taking a decision on the application.The Supreme Administrative Court held that Supo's documents in this case could not be regarded as expert advice in the meaning of the Common Procedures Directive.Also, the Directive does not specity that an asylum applicant's access to information could not be limited on grounds of substantial public interest even in cases where access to a document has been requested by the applicant's öegaö adviser on the applicant's behalf.

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that A did not have right of access to the contents of the reasoning and background materials of Supo's statement.The request for access to these documents could thus be denied.

2.11.2023 / 2.11.2023 / RHANSKI