Case Law
- Canada: Federal Court 1
- Council of Europe: European Commission on Human Rights 1
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 10
- European Union: Council of the European Union 1
- European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union 2
- Finland: Asylum Appeals Board 6
- Finland: Directorate of Immigration 2
- Finland: Helsinki Administrative Court 5
- Finland: Supreme Administrative Court 11
- Finland: Supreme Court 1
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 1
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 4
- 1951 Refugee Convention 1
- Access to procedures 1
- Administrative courts 1
- Asylum policy 1
- Asylum-seekers 1
- Burden-sharing and international co-operation 1
- Complementary forms of protection 1
- Criminal justice 2
- Decision on admissibility 2
- Denial of nationality 2
- Denial of refugee status 2
- Deportation / Forcible return 3
- EU Qualification Directive 1
- Entry / Exit 1
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 2
- Exclusion clauses 1
- Expulsion 2
- Extradition 1
- False documents 1
- Family reunification 2
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 1
- Freedom of expression 4
- Freedom of speech 4
- Gender-based persecution 1
- Grounds for persecution 1
- Habitual residence 1
- Immigration Detention 1
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 2
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1
- International protection 2
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 2
- Mandate status 2
- Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Passports 1
- Persecution based on political opinion 4
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 1
- Refoulement 1
- Refugee / Asylum law 1
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 2
- Regional instruments 2
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 1
- Residence permits / Residency 3
- Right to family life 3
- Right to liberty and security 1
- Rights of non-citizens 2
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 1
- Smuggling of persons 2
- Social group persecution 2
- Statelessness 2
- Trafficking in persons 1
- Travel documents 2
- UNHCR mandate 2
- Unaccompanied / Separated children 1
- Visas 3
- Well-founded fear of persecution 2
|
Helsinki Administrative Court Decision of 5 February 2004
5 February 2004 | Judicial Body: Finland: Helsinki Administrative Court | Countries: Finland - Russian Federation |
|
Directorate of Immigration Decision of 14 January 2004
14 January 2004 | Judicial Body: Finland: Directorate of Immigration | Topic(s): Visas | Countries: Finland - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
|
N. v. Finland
23 September 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - Finland |
|
U.S. v. Finland
Display in UN document template Original: ENGLISH 15 May 2003 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Expulsion - Non-refoulement - Refoulement | Countries: Finland - Sri Lanka |
|
Lagerblom v. Sweden
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. The applicant is a Finnish national who settled in Sweden in the 1980s. In February 1993, he was charged with a criminal offence. He was convicted in May 1994. The sentence was confirmed in appeal in June 1995. During the whole procedure, the applicant, for whom a lawyer was appointed, spoke in Finnish and submitted documents in Finnish. He also wanted to be represented by a different lawyer, one who understood Finnish. Before the Court he complained on the basis of Art. 6 § 3 of the ECHR, that he was not allowed to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. As a consequence his appointed lawyer, who did not or understand speak Finnish, could not carry out his duties properly. The Court started by saying that the right to chose one's lawyer was not absolute, notably when free legal aid is concerned. In appointing lawyers domestic courts should have regard to the wishes of the accused but these can be overridden when necessary for the interests of justice. In this case, the Court noted that the applicant's command of Swedish was sufficient to communicate with his lawyer and that in any case interpretation was provided during the hearings and when submitting documents in Finnish. For all these reasons, the Court decided that there was no breach of Art. 6 § 3 of the ECHR. 14 April 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Countries: Finland - Sweden |
|
Directorate of Immigration Decision of 20 January 2003
20 January 2003 | Judicial Body: Finland: Directorate of Immigration | Countries: Finland - Somalia |
|
Helsinki Administrative Court Decision of 20 December 2002
20 December 2002 | Judicial Body: Finland: Helsinki Administrative Court | Topic(s): Freedom of expression - Freedom of speech - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Finland - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
|
Supreme Administrative Court Decision of 31 October 2002 (Summary)
31 October 2002 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Countries: Finland - Palestine, State of |
|
Supreme Administrative Court Decision of 31 October 2002
31 October 2002 | Judicial Body: Finland: Supreme Administrative Court | Countries: Finland - Palestine, State of |
|
Helsinki Administrative Court Decision of 3 October 2002
The Directorate of Immigration had decided that the appellant should not be granted asylum. Since the appellant was in need of protection, the Directorate of Immigration granted the appellant permission of stay until 03/10/2001 with status A.3. 3 October 2002 | Judicial Body: Finland: Helsinki Administrative Court | Countries: Finland - Palestine, State of |
