The case concerned an Iraqi national whose residence permit decision based on family ties as family member of a refugee was rejected. The applicant appealed the negative decision and argued that the decision as based on an incorrect application of law, in view of the latest judgement of the CJEU, B. M. M. and Others v Belgium, Joined Cases C-133/19, C-136/19, C-137/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:577, 16 July 2020. The Supreme Administrative Court analysed whether the decision had to be annulled in a request for annulment of a definitive judgement.

In fact, the family sponsor, Iraqi national, has been granted refugee status and a residence permit in Finland on 1 August 2017. His son, B., of Iraqi nationality, has applied for family reunification at the embassy in Ankara on 25 August 2017 on basis that he was the sponsor minor child. The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the application because the applicant came to age ten days after submission of the application and thus, he was treated as adult on the day of the FIS decision. The applicant was not considered a minor under the care of the family sponsor as provided by in section 37 of the Aliens Act. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the leave to appeal, and the negative decision became final.

The CJEU had pronounced a judgement on interpretation of the family reunification directive and stated that the date to be taken into account when determining the age of majority was the date when the application for family reunification was made.

The applicant had requested the annulment of the final decision based on the CJEU judgement. The Supreme Administrative Court referred to its practice and stated that the principle of legal certainty requires that final and binding decision are not overturned.

However, the Supreme Administrative Curt took into consideration that the assessment of the time for determination of minor’s age has been decisive in the case and also in view of the right to family life and best interest of the child, it considered that the erroneous application of the law could not be corrected by a new application to be submitted by B.. Thus, the court allowed the annulment of the final decision, ordered the case to be processed again by FIS and B had to be considered a minor.