Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 4 July 2013, Hehao 13/0757/1
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Reception conditions
Description
The full set of measures that Member States grant to asylum seekers in accordance with Directive 2003/9/EC. |
|
Dublin Transfer
Description
"The transfer of responsibility for the examination of an asylum application from one Member State to another Member State. Such a transfer typically also includes the physical transport of an asylum applicant to the Member State responsible in cases where the applicant is in another Member State and/or has lodged an application in this latter Member State (Article 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003). The determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application is done on the basis of objective and hierarchical criteria, as laid out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003." |
|
Dependant (Dependent person)
Description
“While there is no internationally recognized definition of dependency, UNHCR uses an operational definition to assist field staff in the work with individual cases: - Dependent persons should be understood as persons who depend for their existence substantially and directly on any other person, in particular because of economic reasons, but also taking emotional dependency into consideration. - Dependency should be assumed when a person is under the age of 18, and when that person relies on others for financial support. Dependency should also be recognized if a person is disabled not capable of supporting him/herself. - The dependency principle considers that, in most circumstances, the family unit is composed of more that the customary notion of a nuclear family (husband, wife and minor children). This principle recognizes that familial relationships are sometimes broader than blood lineage, and that in many societies extended family members such as parents, brothers and sisters, adult children, grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews, etc., are financially and emotionally tied to the principal breadwinner or head of the family unit. 14. UNHCR recognizes the different cultural roots and societal norms that result in the variety of definitions of the family unit. It therefore promotes a path of cultural sensitivity combined with a pragmatic approach as the best course of action in the process of determining the parameters of a given refugee family.“ In the context of applications for protection, applications may be made on behalf of dependants in some instances per Art 6 APD. In the context of the Dublin II Regs dependency may be grounds for evoking the humanitarian clause (Art. 15) in order to bring dependent relatives together. In the context of family reunification a condition precedent in the case of some applicants is a relationship of dependency. “The principle of dependency requires that economic and emotional relationships between refugee family members be given equal weight and importance in the criteria for reunification as relationships based on blood lineage or legally sanctioned unions… |
|
Health (right to)
Description
Member States shall ensure that applicants receive the necessary health care which shall include, at least, emergency care and essential treatment of illness. Member States shall also ensure that beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status have access to health care under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted such statuses. |
|
Vulnerable person
Description
Persons in a vulnerable position, such as"Minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence. Note: Directive 2011/36/EU defines a position of vulnerability as a situation in which the person concerned has no real or acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved." |
Headnote:
The Helsinki Administrative Court considered the Applicant to be particularly vulnerable in relation to Italy due to her health condition, the traumatic experiences in Syria and the country of origin information regarding the asylum system in Italy. She would suffer from serious harm if returned there. The Helsinki Administrative Court returned the case for new processing by the Finnish Immigration Service.
Facts:
The Applicant is a 38-year old Christian single woman from Syria. She has lived together with her mother with whom she escaped her country of origin after being persecuted, harassed, violated and threatened by the insurgents. They escaped the civil war first to Lebanon and then to Italy. The Applicant´s brother, who has Finnish nationality and who lives in Finland, helped them in their escape. The Applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a very large tumour in her upper jaw, which requires operation and expert medical treatment.
The Finnish Immigration Service did not examine the application for international protection and decided to deport her to Italy,which, according to the Dublin Regulation, is responsible for processing the asylum application. The Italian authorities accepted the request. According to the Finnish Immigration Service’s statement to the Court, vulnerable asylum seekers, for example, those in need of expert medical care, are privileged to be accepted to the SPRAR-system which in Italy is responsible for asylum seekers and persons with residence permits. The Finnish authorities responsible for the execution of the decision and deportation of the Applicant can inform the Italian authorities beforehand of the health conditions and the special reception needs of the Applicant. According to the Finnish Immigration Service, the health condition of the Applicant does not cause such a dependence on the assistance of the family member residing in Finland as stated in Article 15(2) of the Dublin II Regulation. The tumour can be operated on in Finland, but it is possible to guarantee the continuation of treatment by the cooperation between the Finnish and Italian health care- and reception personnel, thus the Applicant cannot be in a particularly vulnerable position due to her health in relation to Italy. In addition, the Finnish Immigration Service refered to the UNHCR Guidelines published in July 2012 according to which, although there is space for improvements in the Italian system, the asylum procedure and the reception conditions are mainly at acceptable levels. Based on this, the Finnish Immigration Service stated that they do not have any systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum system that could lead to inhuman or degrading treatment of the Applicant in Italy. The Helsinki Administrative Court granted interim measures.
Decision & reasoning:
The Helsinki Administrative Court considered the Applicant to be particularly vulnerable in relation to Italy due to her health condition, the traumatic experiences in Syria and the country of origin information regarding the asylum system in Italy. She would suffer from serious harm if returned there.
Outcome:
The Helsinki Administrative Court overruled the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service and returned the case for the new processing there.
Subsequent proceedings:
The Finnish Immigration Service granted refugee status to the Applicant and her mother. The case of the Applicant´s mother: hehao 13/0759/1.
Observations/comments:
In the application of the Applicant´s mother, hehao 13/0759/1, the Court reasoned the decision to return the case to new processing in Finnish Immigration Service in a similar manner as in the daughter´s case. In the mother´s case, the Court considered her to be particularly vulnerable in relation to Italy due to her age, the traumatic experiences in Syria and the country of origin information regarding the asylum system in Italy. She would suffer from serious harm if returned there.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Finland - Aliens Act - Section 146 |
| Finland - Aliens Act - Section 147 |