A., a Ukrainian national, has resided in Finland since 2014 holding several residence permits. In January 2018, the Police Department recommended the deportation of the applicant on grounds that he has committed crimes. In September 2018, the Finnish Immigration Service decided not to deport him, but it mentioned to reconsider the removal if the applicant would be convicted of crimes in the future. In November 2020, the Finnish Immigration Service decided not to extend the applicant's residence permit based on employment on grounds of danger to public order and security and ordered his removal to his country of origin. The deportation decision was further overturned by the Turku Administrative Court in May 2022 due to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. By decision of 13 November 2024, the Finnish Immigration Service rejected the application for temporary protection, finding that the applicant was excluded from protection on account of repeated commission of serious crimes during his stay in Finland, ordered his deportation to Ukraine and an indefinite entry ban to the Schengen area.

On appeal, the administrative court overturned the decision of the Finnish Immigration Service and referred the case back for re-examination. It assessed that A. had abandoned his criminal lifestyle and had integrated into the Finnish society. In addition, the court held that the determining authority failed to assess the applicant's need for temporary protection.

The Finnish Immigration Service appealed the decision of the administrative court before the Supreme Administrative Court, submitting that, although the applicant was in principle eligible for temporary protection according to the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) and the Council Implementing Decision 2022/382, he constituted a danger to public order and public security within the meaning of Section 110(3) of the Aliens Act, which is a basis for refusing temporary protection. The Finnish Immigration Office also argued that the lower court's assessment of the danger to public order and public security did not sufficiently account for the facts that the applicant had been convicted for a particularly serious crime by a final judgment, and that he had committed new offences after the probationary period.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the TPD and Article 2 of the Council Implementing Decision 2022/382 provide the legal basis for the categories of persons to whom temporary protection can be granted, but Member States have the discretion to expand the target group to which temporary protection applies. By Government decision 149/2022, Finland extended the eligibility for temporary protection, among others, to Ukrainian citizens who were already residing in Finland at the time of the decision and who could not return to Ukraine due to the armed conflict. Thus, it found that A., solely based on his nationality, was eligible for temporary protection pursuant to the Council Implementing Decision 2022/382 and the Finnish Government Decision 149/2022. The court further held that the Finnish Immigration Service did not need to and could not separately assess whether A. was in need of temporary protection.

On exclusion, it recalled that the conditions for refusing temporary protection are stipulated under Section 110 (3) of the Aliens Act, on which the Immigration Service based its decision, and which constitutes the national implementation of Article 28 of the TPD for situations when the applicant was subject to a final conviction for a particularly serious crime. However, the court clarified that since Section 103(3) of the Aliens Act does not provide for a refusal of temporary protection solely on basis of a criminal conviction, it cannot be interpreted as meaning that a criminal conviction is the only basis for considering that a person constitutes a danger to public order or security.

In the absence of case law on exclusion from temporary protection on ground of danger to public order, the court referred to the similar jurisprudence on removal, return or expulsion. It referenced the CJEU judgment in ZZ v State Secretariat for Justice and Security (C-554/13, 11 June 2015), to highlight that the examination of whether a person constitutes a danger to public order and security, requires a case by case assessment and that there must be a genuine, immediate and sufficient serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society. This assessment cannot be based solely on a criminal conviction, but it must consider the nature and seriousness of the act and the time that has passed since the act occurred, as well as the person's future behaviour.

It noted that at the time of the immigration office decision, A. had been convicted of two aggravated drug offences, committed in 2018-2019 and 2021, involving the sale and distribution of large quantities of drugs. In the conviction judgment, the court of appeal noted that the applicant had a significant role in the commission of the crimes, fact demonstrated also by the high reward promised to him.

Also, since 2016, he had several other convictions, including for theft, drunk driving, illegal threats, firearms offenses, aggravated drug offence in March 2022, and he had served a prison sentence until January 2024 when he was released on parole. He was performing community service when the immigration office adopted the negative decision on temporary protection. After this decision, the applicant was found guilty of endangering traffic safety in April 2025 and of engaging in minor illegal importation in May 2025.

Against this background, the court held that the decisive factor was not A.'s statements that he intended to live a blameless life or the fact that he had not committed any serious offences after January 2021. Importantly, the Supreme Administrative Court affirmed that A.'s repeated commission of various offences showed disregard for legal prohibitions and orders. In its case law, the court has held that particularly aggravated drug crimes are of such a nature and seriousness that they demonstrate that a person's conduct poses a danger to public order and safety. The court noted that the applicant arrived in Finland at the age of 16 years old in 2016, and since reaching adulthood, he had repeatedly committed crimes in Finland. The frequency, number and nature of the offences indicated a lack of adaptation to Finnish society. Consequently, the court concluded that A.'s actions were likely to endanger public order and security. It disagreed with the lower court's conclusion that the applicant's circumstances had changed significantly in a way that reduced the risk of a threat to public order and held that the Finnish Immigration Service was entitled, pursuant to Section 110(3) of the Aliens Act, not to grant A. a temporary residence permit on temporary protection grounds.

Regarding the deportation order, it noted that the Finnish Immigration Service had duly considered the updated country-of-origin information to assess that overall, the security situation in Ukraine did not prevent the removal. The court held that there were no weightier reasons in the case than the grounds for exclusion and to prevent the return. It confirmed the deportation order and the entry ban.