A, Iraqi national, applied for international protection in Finland for the third time on 29 August 2022. The Finnish Immigration Service heard the applicant's spouse, B, as the guardian of the applicant's child, C, regarding the applicant's possible removal from the country and a ban on entry. On 27 January 2023, the Finnish Immigration Service decided to reject the request of the applicant and to order the return of the applicant to his home country, Iraq. On 2 February 2023, the decision was notified to the applicant. On 13 February 2023 the applicant appealed the decision to the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland, which rejected the appeal on 8 March 2023.

On 10 May 2023, the Immigration Service notified the applicant's spouse, B, and minor child, C, of its decision concerning the applicant's deportation. On 8 June 2023, the spouse and child appealed against the decision on the deportation to the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland. In its decision of 16 August 2024, the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland rejected the appeal. The applicant's spouse, B, and the child C then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. They asked the court whether they have, as family members of a foreign applicant, an independent right to appeal against the decision on the applicant's removal from the country, and whether the Administrative Court of Eastern Finland should have examined their appeal against the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service.

The Supreme Administrative Court recalled that ‘mere personal interest' or ‘indirect effect' is not sufficient to obtain a right of appeal, but the decision must also have direct effects on the legal position of a (legal) person. The court held that as such, the decision to remove the applicant from the country does not affect the family members and does not affect their right to reside in Finland. At the same time, the court recognised that it is undeniable that removal may have a real impact on their ability to lead a family life with the applicant when the decision is enforced.

The court noted that whilst the sponsor has a legally regulated status in the residence permit procedure based on the family ties of a family member, in the asylum procedure the applicant's family members do not have similar status. Then, looking at its own precedent, the court further noted that it has been held that considering the best interests of the child and the protection of family life also means that the minor child and spouse of a third-country national have the right to appeal against a decision of the Finnish Immigration Service concerning the family member in question to the extent that the decision concerns the removal of the family member from the country. The court highlighted that in that case, the administrative court was simultaneously hearing the appeals of a third-country national and his or her child and spouse.

Next, the court held that while the obligation of considering the best interests of the child and the protection of family life in asylum proceedings and decision making might require hearing the family member and considering the views or explanation submitted, the family member cannot be regarded as having an interest in bringing proceedings, distinct from the applicant, in relation to the outcome of the case. That is, the family member is not considered to have a right to bring an action on his or her own against the removal decision. The court highlighted that regardless of its factual significance, the impact of the applicant's removal from the country on the rights or interests of a family member cannot be considered ‘immediate' within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court reaffirmed that neither could the obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR lead to an independent right to appeal for family members.

The court noted that an appeal brought by a family member limited solely to removal would also mean that when hearing such an appeal, the administrative court would not be able to intervene in the decision on which the refusal of entry was based, and by which the residence permit was not granted. Based on this, the court reasoned that the appellant's right to appeal must be assessed in a manner that differs from the position expressed in previous case law. The court concluded that the family members of a third-country national do not have an independent right to appeal against the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service on the removal of the third-country national from the country.

The court dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.

The decision was taken based on 9 votes to 1. Judge Robert Utter submitted a statement where he essentially agrees with the majority of the judges that a family member does not have a right to appeal independently but where he affirms that the decision to remove a foreign national from the country has in principle, a direct impact on the rights and interests of his or her family members legally residing in Finland.