Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
11/06/2018
FI: Supreme Administrative Court's case in which the applicant claimed danger of persecution and serious harm in another Member State where she will be transferred according to Dublin Regulation

ECLI
FI:KHO:2018:87
Input Provided By
EUAA Asylum Report
Source
Korkein hallinto-oikeus
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
No
Original Documents
Type
Judgment
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP); Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE; Revised Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as BIP for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection- recast)/or QD 2004/83/EC;
Reference
Finland, Supreme Administrative Court [Korkein hallinto-oikeus], A (Nigeria) v Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto), KHO:2018:87 , FI:KHO:2018:87, 11 June 2018. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=633
Case history
Related cases:
Abstract

The legal question concerned a situation in which the applicant (a third country national) claimed asylum based on events that had happened in another EU MS in which the applicant had lived and towards which the Dublin Regulation was applicable. In the current case, a Nigerian national claimed she was in danger of persecution and serious harm in Spain due to her ex-husband. According to the judgment these kind of grounds for application do not mean that the application could not be subject to the Dublin Regulation. The person cannot claim asylum in relation to a MS he/she is not a national of. Therefore, the MS responsible could be the same MS in which the events had happened and the application could be examined in that same MS. However, if the applicant claims asylum based on events that happened in the MS responsible, they need to be assessed in accordance of ECHR Article 3. In the current case no risk of non-refoulement was found if the person would be transferred into Spain.
Country of Decision
Finland
Court Name
FI: Supreme Administrative Court [Korkein hallinto-oikeus]
Case Number
KHO:2018:87
Date of Decision
11/06/2018
Country of Origin
Nigeria
Keywords
Dublin procedure
Nigeria
Non-refoulement
Vulnerable Group