The case concerned the revocation of a residence permit based on family reunification pursuant to Section 58, subsection 5 of the Aliens Act, on grounds that the family bond had ended. The holder of the residence permit had stated that the reason for the end of the family bond was the violence directed at her by her spouse. In the case of such a basis, the third country national had the opportunity to apply for a residence permit on the basis of section 54, subsection 7 of the Aliens Act. According to the law, a residence permit can be granted to a foreigner after the end of the family bond, if the person's situation is particularly difficult due to the violence directed at him by his spouse and denying the permit would be unreasonable.

The Finnish Immigration Office (FIS) has considered that the applicant has not developed such ties to Finland that the residence permit should not be revoked. The applicant has stayed in Finland for four years, only half of which was with a residence permit. Although she started studying, such circumstance has a temporary nature and temporary bond, thus it does not prevent the cancellation of the residence permit. The residence permits of the children of the family were revoked by a separate decision and they were deported to their home country in the Russian Federation. The FIS considered that it was in the best interest of the children to continue to spend family life with the main guardian, who is the applicant.

The administrative court rejected the first appeal and did not allow an oral hearing and the applicant appealed further before the Supreme Administrative Court. By interim decision of 24 March 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered prohibition of the removal of the applicant until the case is solved.

The court noted that the decision to cancel was made less than half a year before the applicant's temporary residence permit based on family ties would have expired. In a situation where the family bond has ended, the foreigner has the opportunity to apply for a residence permit based on Section 54, subsection 7 of the Aliens Act.

The Supreme Administrative Court assessed that the conditions for granting a permit in Section 54, Subsection 7 of the Aliens Act were functionally connected to the consideration of revocation of the permit in such a way that the provision had to be taken into account when the permit was revoked on the authority's initiative. The court noted first that the end of the family bond was due to domestic violence which was considered credible, violence is supported by the psychologist's and psychotherapist's notes presented, and thus the end of the family bond is not due to the applicant’s behavior. The court stated that the legal prerequisites for revoking the applicant's residence permit have existed in themselves. However, the court considered that when taking into account the explanation received about the reason for the break in the family bond and the applicant's overall situation in Finland, the cancellation of the residence permit must be considered to limit the applicant's rights more than is necessary to promote that immigration remains under control.

In addition, in view of the report on the children's circumstances and the preliminary work of Section 58, subsection 5 of the Aliens Act, and the conditions for the extension permit granted after the end of the family bond, the court ruled that the FIS, has not, at the time of decision-making, revoked the applicant’s residence permit pursuant to Section 58, subsection 5 of the Aliens Act.

The court annulled lower court decisions and the case was sent back for re-examination.