The case concerned an appeal lodged by the applicant, an Iraqi national against the FIS decision to reject his application for international protection because his claims related to risk of persecution on basis of his conversion to Christianity were not deemed credible. The FIS decided to return the applicant to Iraq. The appeal was submitted before the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland. The proceedings before the administrative court were conducted based on section 12a of the Administrative Law Act in a two-member composition which organised an oral hearing to assess the applicant’s religious convictions and the alleged threat in his country of origin. The applicant was personally heard in the oral hearing as well as two witnesses proposed by the applicant.

In an interim decision of 14 August 2020, the administrative court decided, due to disagreement on the outcome between the two judges in the panel, to refer the case to a new panel of three judges and a new oral hearing was organised. The new panel of three judges was composed of other judges as the previous ones were considered to be prevented from hearing the same case as provided in Section 76 of the Administrative Law Act and Chapter 13, Section 7, Subsection 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. A new oral hearing was organised, the applicant and the witnesses were personally heard on the issue of conversion to Christianity and threats in Iraq. The three members panel adopted a negative decision in the appeal. The applicant further appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court which stated that although the Section 12a of the Administrative Law Act allowed for a possible two members composition for an oral hearing, however for cases related to international protection, in which Christianity conversion was about to be assessed, a composition of three members was required.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the interim decision of the administrative court which mentioned the disagreement arising from the outcome of the decision in the administrative court in a two-member composition and the resulting transfer of the case to be resolved in a completely new three-member composition, undermined the applicant's confidence in the appropriateness of the handling of his case and the respect for a fair trial. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the unanimous decision made by the three-member composition of the Administrative Court after an oral hearing, and by which the applicant's appeal against the FIS negative decision was rejected. The case was sent back to the administrative court for re-examination.