The Finnish Immigration Service had rejected A's application for international protection. A appealed the decision to the Administrative Court. As A had disappeared in the middle of its appeal, the Administrative Court had ruled that the case had lapsed. A had since been transferred from Germany to Finland as a so-called Dublin return, and for the second time he applied for international protection in Finland. The Finnish Immigration Service treated A's application as a subsequent application and, due to new issues and lack of grounds, left it inadmissible.

The Administrative Court overturned the decision of the FIS and referred the matter back for review. According to the Administrative Court, after A's appeal concerning the first application for asylum had lapsed and the FIS had not had effective remedies at his disposal in court and had therefore not received a final decision within the meaning of Section 102 of the Aliens Act, his new application should not have been considered a subsequent application and not examined.

Following an appeal by the FIS, the Supreme Administrative Court found that A had appealed to the Administrative Court against the decision rejecting his first application and had thus had the possibility of an effective remedy in court. The Supreme Administrative Court referred to provisions which allowed the person concerned to be considered to have withdrawn his appeal or to have given up the possibility of appeal. After A's loss, the Administrative Court had been able to decide that his appeal would lapse. By the time the appeal had been dismissed, the decision rejecting A's application had become final. A's new application had to be considered a subsequent application.

The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the administrative court's decision and referred the case back to the Administrative Court for review.