Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 20 Dec 2010, 10/1701/1
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Accelerated procedure
Description
Prioritisation or acceleration of any examination in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of the Asylum Procedures Directive, including where the application is likely to be well-founded or where the applicant has special needs or for any of the reasons in Article 23(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive |
|
Trafficking in human beings
Description
"The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. A position of vulnerability means a situation in which the person concerned has no real or acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved. Exploitation includes, as a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs." |
Headnote:
Based on new evidence (suspicion of trafficking) the Administrative Court returned the applicant’s case to the Immigration Service which had previously decided that Italy was responsible for the application according to the Dublin II Regulation.
Facts:
The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the applicant’s residence permit application and did not examine the application for international protection. The Immigration Service decided to return the applicant to Italy, the country responsible for investigating the applicant’s asylum application on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation. The applicant had left her country of origin with a human trafficker who promised her a job in Europe. While in Italy, the applicant was forced into prostitution, and was victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution for six years. In 2009 the applicant was forced to travel to Finland, where the forced prostitution/sexual exploitation continued. In Finland, the applicant was accepted into the assistance system for victims of trafficking. The Finnish Immigration Service held that the allegations of trafficking would be investigated most effectively in Italy. The case was under police investigation in Finland.
Decision & reasoning:
The Administrative Court reversed the Immigration Service’s decision to return the applicant to Italy, and returned the case to the Immigration Service based on new evidence (suspicion of trafficking).
Outcome:
The case is still pending before the Immigration Service.