You are here:

Key facts of the case:

The Finnish Immigration Service had made a decision by which A’s subsidiary protection status and residence permit were withdrawn and she was deported to Somaliland. The Immigration Service found that A had given false information as to where in Somalia she originally came from. This had affected the outcome of the decision to grant her subsidiary protection status. As grounds for its decision, the Immigration Service referred to the results of a language analysis, A’s meagre knowledge of her alleged place of residence in Somalia and the contradictory information about A’s origins received through interviewing A and various other persons. It was established that A was not from Southern Somalia but from Somaliland and was thus not in need of international protection. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. It declined A’s request for an oral hearing. In the court’s view, it was unlikely that A would have been able to provide new evidence which would impact the decision. Apart from oral evidence, she had no intention of presenting any other new evidence. The court held that Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was applicable in the case. However, it did not obligate the court to conduct an oral hearing in this case, because hearing A in person would not have brought forth any additional evidence regarding the facts and because A had been heard in the administrative procedure preceding the court proceedings.