Article 24 - The rights of the child
Key facts of the case:
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 was denied. The court ruled the appeal inadmissible. As regards the right of 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 court’s decision on the application for leave to appeal.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Supreme Administrative Court held it should first consider whether the appellant’s spouse and minor child have a right of appeal against a decision by which the Immigration Service denies an appellant stay in the country after having rejected the appellant’s asylum application. If the answer is positive, the court would then assess whether the appellant could be denied stay in the country, having regard to the protection of family life and the best interests of the child.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court found that the CRC as well as the ECtHR 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 2006/115/EC, which states that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when implementing the directive, and to 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 Charter. 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, 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 interests 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.
(25) In its decision of 11 March 2021 in case C-112/2020 (ECLI:EU:C:2021:197), the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to take due account of the best interests of the child before adopting a return decision accompanied by an entry ban, even where the person to whom that decision is addressed is not a minor but his or her father (paragraph 43 of the judgment).
...
(31) The right to protection of family life, as guaranteed in the ECHR and the Charter, must be taken into account when assessing whether a decision denying an appellant stay in the country can be regarded as having an immediate effect on the right or interest of the appellant’s spouse or child. The protection of 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. The Supreme Administrative Court finds that having regard to the best interests of the child and the protection of family life also means that a minor child and a spouse of a third-country national have a right of appeal against a decision which is made by the Immigration Service and concerns a family member, as regards the part of the decision by which the said family member is ordered to leave the country.
(32) Therefore, the administrative court should not have ruled inadmissible the appeal by the appellant’s spouse and minor child to the extent they challenged the decision by which the appellant’s stay in the country was denied.
(25) Unionin tuomioistuin on 11.3.2021 antamassaan tuomiossa asiassa C-112/20 (ECLI:EU:C:2021:197) todennut, että direktiivin 2008/115/EY 5 artiklaa, luettuna yhdessä Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan 24 artiklan kanssa on tulkittava siten, että jäsenvaltioiden on otettava asianmukaisesti huomioon lapsen etu ennen palauttamispäätöksen, johon on liitetty maahantulokielto, tekemistä myös silloin, kun kyseisen päätöksen adressaatti ei ole alaikäinen vaan hänen isänsä (tuomion kohta 43).
(31) Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen ja perusoikeuskirjan turvaama perhe-elämän suoja on otettava huomioon arvioitaessa sitä, voidaanko muutoksenhakijaa koskevan käännyttämispäätöksen katsoa vaikuttavan välittömästi muutoksenhakijan puolison tai lapsen oikeuteen tai etuun. Perhe-elämän suojan ja lapsen edun merkitys vähenisivät merkittävästi, jos puoliso ja alaikäinen lapsi eivät voisi saattaa muutoksenhakijaa koskevan käännyttämispäätöksen lainmukaisuutta tuomioistuimen ratkaistavaksi. Korkein hallinto-oikeus katsoo, että lapsen edun ja perhe-elämän suojan huomioon ottaminen tarkoittaa myös sitä, että kolmannen valtion kansalaisen alaikäisellä lapsella ja puolisolla on oikeus hakea muutosta kyseistä perheenjäsentään koskevaan Maahanmuuttoviraston päätökseen siltä osin kuin päätös koskee tämän maasta poistamista.
(32) Tämän vuoksi hallinto-oikeuden ei olisi tullut jättää muutoksenhakijan puolison ja alaikäisen lapsen valitusta tutkimatta siltä osin kuin heidän valituksessaan on ollut kysymys muutoksenhakijan käännyttämisestä.
