The case concerned an application for asylum submitted by an applicant from Iraq and for which the Finnish Immigration Service considered that he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on religious grounds but excluded him from protection for alleged commission of a serious non-political crime. The Supreme Administrative Corut had to determine whether the administrative court could have assessed the application of the exclusion clause in the case without holding an oral hearing.

In fact, A, the applicant had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in 2017 and a deportation order was issued by the Finnish Immigration Service. The appeal was rejected and a leave to appeal was not allowed in 2018. On 2 November 2018, the applicant submitted a subsequent request for asylum and the FIS decided on 30 January 2020 that the applicant had a justified reason to fear that he would be persecuted in Iraq on grounds of religious beliefs, as provide for in Section 87 (1)1 of the Aliens Act.

However, the FIS considered that the applicant was guilty of a serious non-political crime according to Section 87(2) of the Aliens Act and excluded him from international protection, thus he was not granted asylum or a residence permit in accordance with Section 52 of the Aliens Act. The applicant was only granted a temporary residence permit for one year. The FIS based the exclusion ground on the fact that the applicant had shot his cousin in Iraq because the later had entered the applicant’s and his family house and shot at the applicant.

In the appeal, the applicant requested an oral hearing in order to explain the shooting incident and clarify whether the incident was a self-defence or force majeure, but the administrative court rejected the request.

The Supreme Administrative Court adopted an interim decision on 1 March 2023 requested the prohibition of the implementation of the removal from Finland pending the outcome of the leave to appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered that the burden of proof was on the state authorities when applying the exclusion clause and that the FIS had the obligation to prove that the applicant had committed or had reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant had committed a serious non-political crime. The court clarified that according to applicable administrative law, it is important that the Finnish Immigration Service has presented sufficient evidence and conducted a thorough investigation on the matter at stake.

The Supreme Administrative Court reiterated that according to the UNHCR manual, “exclusion clauses must be interpreted narrowly because the exclusion clause has serious consequences for the person concerned (para. 149). When considering not to grant asylum on the basis of a serious non-political crime, the nature of the crime the applicant is suspected of and the degree of persecution he is threatened with must be taken into account, and a balance must be found between them”. The court also referred to the legal analysis provided by EASO, Exclusion: Articles 12 and 17 Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU. A Judicial Analysis, January 2016 to emphasize that i each case, there must be an individual evaluation of the situation and if there is any court judgment as an example of a possible statement used as a basis for an exclusion clause, that judgement can be taken into account provided that it was given in a fair trial.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the lower court interpretation and assessment of the events differ from the applicant’s own understanding and progress of the events and also on the existence of any mitigating elements or elements which could completely eliminate responsibility of the applicant by justification or forgiveness, and which could have appeared in the shooting incident. It stated that according to administrative law, the lower court must ensure that a case is settled meaning that the conclusions which form the grounds for the court decision are based on facts which were sufficiently clarified.

In these circumstances, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the Administrative Court should have organised an oral hearing to allow the applicant order to clarify the matter. The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the investigation of the case in the administrative court had not been sufficient, thus it annulled the contested decision and referred the case back to the administrative court to organise an oral hearing and then to decide again.