The case concerned procedural safeguards in relation to the right to appeal when the contested decision contained wrong information on the appeals procedure.

The Finnish Immigration Service adopted a decision on 24 July 2023 and left the application unexamined and provided information under ‘appeal' that the decision can be appealed before the Administrative Court of Turku, but the appeal notice mentioned that the competent court would be the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland because the decision was adopted in the eastern area of the asylum unit.

The applicant submitted the appeal before the Administrative Court of Turku, which sent the case to the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland on basis of to Section 17 subsection 2 of the Act on Trial in Administrative Matters as the basis for the transfer. The Administrative Court of Eastern Finland rejected the appeal as being submitted to the wrong court and beyond the time limit of 1st September 2023. The administrative court stated that since the contested decision was accompanied by a notice of appeal, then the fact that the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service has included an incorrect appeal referral to the Administrative Court of Turku is not decisive in the case.

The applicant submitted a leave to appeal which was allowed by the Supreme Administrative Court which found that since the appeal guidance on the competent administrative court contained in the authority's decision was in conflict with the per se legal notice of appeal attached to the decision, the conflict had been apt to cause uncertainty about the competent administrative court. The court noted that for this reason, the notice of appeal had been incorrect as a whole as referred to in section 17 subsection 1 of the Act on Trial in Administrative Matters and, even though the appeal had only arrived at the right court after the appeal period had expired, the applicant, who followed the incorrect guidance contained in the decision had not lost his right to appeal.

According to the Supreme Administrative Court, Section 17 subsection 1 of the Act on Legal Proceedings in Administrative Matters, if the appeal was made following the wrong procedure due to a missing or incorrect notice of appeal, the appeal is not to be dismissed for this reason. If the appeal was submitted to the wrong administrative court or authority due to a missing or incorrect notice of appeal, the authority must transfer the appeal to the competent court or authority according to subsection 2 of the mentioned section. In addition, the applicant would not lose his right to have the appeal examined, even if the transferred appeal reaches the right authority or court after the appeal period has expired.

The Supreme Administrative Court also highlighted that the appeal guidance from the authority's decision must be unambiguous, while in this case the contradiction between the decision and the annex could cause confusion about the competent administrative court. Thus, it held that the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland should not have left the appeal unexamined based on the reason that it arrived at the court outside the legal time limit to appeal. Therefore, the court annulled the decision of the administrative court and returned the case to the administrative court for retrial.

The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the contested decision and stated that the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland should not have left the appeal unexamined as a late appeal due to incorrect notice and consequently a wrong procedure was followed.