The case concerned the question of whether the Finnish Immigration Service could have treated the asylum application lodged as a minor, with his family members or separately, as an adult, since the applicant became an adult during the processing of the asylum application. The applicant’s family members had been granted asylum during the procedure.

The applicant, an Iranian national, applied first for international protection on 13 November 2015 as a minor, together with his parents and younger sister. The application was rejected and confirmed in court. He reapplied on 16 August 2018, together with his sister and parents, but the application was rejected by the Finnish Immigration Service. The Administrative Court of Eastern Finland overturned the case due to procedural errors. The FIS has further re-examined the case while the applicant reached the age of majority and rejected the application as it found that the applicant would not be at risk of serious violations of rights upon returning to his home country due to the fact that he belongs to the Yarsan religion. The FIS also mentioned in the decision that the applicant’s parents and minor sister were granted asylum. The applicant’s appeal before the administrative court was rejected and he further appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court also requested the FIS to give an opinion of the significance of the CJEU cases Nigyar Raul Kaza Ahmedbekova and Raul Emin Ogla Ahmedbekov v Deputy Chair of the State Agency for Refugees (Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite) (C-652/16, 4 October 2018) and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SE (C-768/19, 9 September 2021). The FIS considered that these cases have no impact on the assessment of the case and mentioned that their interpretation is that the age of the applicant and whether he/she is a minor is determined at the time of the authority’s decision. As such, the FIS stated that if a minor applies for asylum in Finland together with his family and he turns 18 during the asylum procedure, a separate decision will be made for him. The Supreme Administrative Court granted interim measure and ordered the suspension of the execution of the removal order until the court settled the case.

The Supreme Administrative Court made a thorough analysis of the CJEU jurisprudence with regard to the definition of a minor, namely Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SE (C-768/19, 9 September 2021) and Nigyar Raul Kaza Ahmedbekova and Raul Emin Ogla Ahmedbekov v Deputy Chair of the State Agency for Refugees (Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite) (C-652/16, 4 October 2018). It also considered that there was no need to send questions for a preliminary ruling before the CJEU.

The Supreme Administrative Court considered that a person who was a minor at the moment of applying for international protection should be treated as a minor asylum applicant throughout the procedure. The court referred to the CJEU considerations in the case C-768/19 where there was an interpretation of the third indent of Article 2, subsection j of the revised Qualification Directive. In the present case the question was on interpretation of the definition of minors as referred to in Article 2, letter k of the recast QD.

The Supreme Administrative Court underlined that the definitions of the same directive had to be applied uniformly, and that the EU law had not given discretion to the member states regarding the definition of minors. The court referred to the CJEU judgment to stated that another interpretation could not be envisaged since there will be no guarantee of the same and predictable treatment of the applicants when the case is handled by the authority and the court, in accordance with the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty.

Based on the abovementioned, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicant’s case could not have been processed and decided by considering him as an adult applicant. Also, the case could not be analysed without taking into account the threats of being persecuted and suffering serious harm directed towards the applicant's family members, when determining whether the applicant himself is exposed to such threats due to the family ties that he had to those persons. The court referred the case back to the Finnish Immigration Service for re-examination.