Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 19 May 2010, 10/0780/3
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
First country of asylum
Description
"A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant for asylum if: (a) he/she has been recognised in that country as a refugee and he/she can still avail himself/herself of that protection; or (b) he/she otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting from the principle of non-refoulement; provided that he/she will be re-admitted to that country." Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible if a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant. |
|
Safe third country
Description
Any other country, not being the country of origin, in which an asylum seeker has found or might have found protection. Note: The notion of safe third country (protection elsewhere/first asylum principle) is often used as a criterion of admissibility to the refugee determination procedure. |
Headnote:
The Court considered whether an application for international protection by an applicant of Russian nationality based on experiences of persecution in Lithuania (country of asylum) could be dismissed based on the reasoning that Lithuania is deemed to be a safe country of asylum. The Administrative Court held that the question of whether the applicants are in need of international protection based on the treatment they have received in their country of asylum, Lithuania, could not be examined in an asylum procedure in Lithuania.
Facts:
The applicant, a citizen of the Russian Federation and of Chechen ethnic origin, lived in Lithuania with his wife and children for approximately 10 years. The applicant and his wife were detained and imprisoned for 10 months in Lithuania on criminal charges. Upon release, with criminal charges still pending, they travelled to Finland. Soon after their arrival in Finland the regional court in Lithuania sentenced the applicant and his wife to one year and six months imprisonment.
The applicants applied for international protection in Finland on the one hand in relation to their country of origin, Russia and on the other hand in relation to their country of asylum, Lithuania. The grounds for claiming asylum mainly concerned the treatment they had been subjected to by the authorities in Lithuania.
Following their application for asylum in Finland the authorities in Lithuania issued a European arrest warrant against them.
Evidence was presented in the Finnish asylum and extradition case, showing that the criminal court proceedings in Lithuania did not fulfill the criteria of a just and fair trial and that the applicants, their friends and family as well as supporters were the targets of harassment and persecution.
Evidence was also adduced regarding the ill-health of the applicant and his wife; both had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). .
The Immigration Service dismissed the application for international protection on the grounds that Lithuania was, for the applicant, a safe country of asylum.
Decision & reasoning:
The concept of safe country of asylum was assessed by the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court considered that the question of whether the applicant was in need of international protection because of the treatment he has been subjected to in Lithuania cannot be assessed in an asylum procedure in Lithuania. On this ground, the Administrative Court considered that the Immigration Service should not have dismissed the application for international protection, which was based on the treatment received in Lithuania, on the grounds that Lithuania can be considered to be a safe country of asylum.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court did not examine the case further but overturned the Immigration Service’s decision and returned the case to the Immigration Service for material re-examination.
Subsequent proceedings:
The Immigration Service appealed against the Administrative Court's decision. The appeal is still pending in the Supreme Administrative Court.
Observations/comments:
A request for a preliminary ruling to the EU Court of Justice was made regarding the grounds for safe country of asylum and accelerated procedure, as well as their use.