The applicant has been refused international protection and a subsequent application was rejected as inadmissible. The FIS ordered the return to his country of origin was issued, jointly with a 2-year entry ban. The Turku Regional Administrative Court had to decide whether the spouse of the applicant had the right to appeal against the negative decision.

The Administrative Court mentioned that according to section 7 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, an appeal against an administrative decision may be lodged by the person to whom the decision is addressed or who’s right, obligation or interest is directly affected by the decision and whose right of appeal is separately provided by law. The right of appeal could not therefore be inferred solely from the indirect effects of the decision. However, the assessment of the direct effect of a decision always requires a case - by - case assessment of the quality of the case and the need for legal certainty.

The ECtHR ruled a judgment of 5 October 2000 in Maaouia v. France, that expulsion did not constitute a right or an obligation under Article 6 of the ECHR. Expulsion is a preventive administrative measure related to the management of entry into a country and therefore expulsion is not subject to the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6, although expulsion may have, inter alia, a significant effect on a person's private and family life.

The case concerned the rejection as inadmissible of a subsequent application and the issue of international protection concerned only the applicant. Following this decision, he was ordered to be deported and refused entry, these factors influencing the right to private a family life as provided by Article 8 ECHR. However, in line with the case law, a family gatherer living in Finland had the right of independent appeal in the case of a residence permit applied for on the basis of family ties and the availability of legal protection related to the protection of his family life. In such circumstances and taking into consideration the case-law of the ECtHR, the Administrative Court held that the expulsion and refusal of entry in connection with the subsequent application did not have such a direct effect on the spouse's right, obligation or interest to appeal. The Court concluded that the spouse did not have a right to appeal, and the complaint was rejected as inadmissible.