Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case concerning the removal of a foreigner

The appellant in the case was a Russian national, a woman born in 1942, who came to Finland in December 2008 on a tourist visa and stayed in Espoo at her daughter’s home. The daughter had been living in Finland since 1988 and had received Finnish citizenship. Soon after her arrival, the appellant had applied for a residence permit on the basis of a Finnish citizen’s family ties. She claimed that she had become seriously ill in 2006 and could not get proper medical care in Russia. Her husband had died in 2007 and another daughter had been missing since 2003. Thus, according to the appellant, she was completely dependent on her daughter who lived in Finland.

The Finnish Immigration Service refused to grant a residence permit and the Helsinki Administrative Court rejected the appeal of the decision, considering that the appellant had the possibility to obtain health care in Russia and therefore was not completely dependent on her daughter. According to the Administrative Court, the daughter also had the opportunity to visit the appellant in Russia and to help the appellant financially. In addition, the Administrative Court considered that no such family ties existed between the appellant and her daughter that would justify the appellant to obtain a residence permit on the basis of family ties. The Supreme Administrative Court did not grant the appellant leave to appeal.

The appellant argued that the procedure violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, she argued that her right to respect for private and family life, ensured in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was violated.

In January 2012, the European Court of Human Rights gave an interim measure suspending the appellant’s removal until further notice.

According to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the appellant’s removal to Russia would not violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the appellant would be able to obtain medical care in Russia, in either a public or a private care facility, or to hire outside help. The European Court of Human Rights also took note of the Government’s assurance that the enforcing authority would take account of the appellant’s state of health at the time of the removal and if necessary would, for instance, arrange ambulance transport.

The European Court of Human Rights did not take for examination the appellant’s contended violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it took the view that the concept of family in normal circumstances does not include family relations outside the core family, such as relations between parents and adult children.

Finally, the European Court of Human Rights noted that it is appropriate not to expel the appellant until such time as this judgment has become final or until otherwise ordered.

Additional information: Legal Officer Mia Spolander, Unit for Human Rights Courts and Conventions, tel. +358 295 35 11 76