S.B. v. FINLAND
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
1. The applicant, Ms S.B., is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1986. The President granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She was represented before the Court by Mr Leo Hertzberg, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. 2. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant arrived in Finland on 18 July 2007 with a visa granted by the Finnish consulate in Rabat. 5. On 10 September 2007 the applicant married an Algerian man in Finland and she was granted a residence permit on the basis of family ties until 19 January 2010. She divorced on 7 September 2009. 6. On 21 December 2009 the applicant sought asylum as well as the extension of her residence permit. She stated that her adoptive mother lived in Finland and that they were very close. 7. On 18 March 2010 the Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuuttovirasto, Migrationsverket) rejected her asylum application and decided to order her removal to Morocco. In its reasons the Service stated that the applicant’s story contained conflicting information concerning, inter alia, with whom she had lived in Morocco. Her story was thus not fully credible. The threats imposed by private parties were not as such sufficient grounds to grant asylum. Since 2004 Moroccan women no longer needed permission from their father to marry and divorces had become more common in Morocco. The police had a special unit for investigating domestic violence and a shelter system was in place for women. It was nowadays possible for a woman to live alone in Morocco. The applicant had not shown any reason why she could not obtain protection from the Moroccan authorities if needed. Even though the applicant had taken part in student protests, she had not been arrested and her name was not known to the Moroccan authorities. It was not credible that she would be persecuted in Morocco for political reasons. Nor was it credible that she would be persecuted due to the fact that she was married to an Algerian man. As to the residence permit, the Service noted that the applicant’s adoption had not been registered in Finland. In any event, the applicant was an adult and could not be considered a family member of her adoptive mother. 8. The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen), requesting that the Immigration Service’s decision be quashed. 9. On 3 November 2010 a District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) confirmed the applicant’s adoption in Finland. It found that the applicant’s aunt had taken care of her since she was four years old. Even when the aunt moved to Finland in 1997, she had been in close contact with the applicant. In 2000 the adoption had been registered in Morocco. The applicant’s adoption could be confirmed in Finland only when she had become an adult. 10. On 7 January 2011 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds as the Immigration Service. This decision was served to the applicant on 27 January 2011. 11. By letter dated 17 February 2011 the applicant appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) requesting a stay on expulsion, which was not granted. 12. On 22 February 2011 the applicant was detained with a view to preparing her removal. 13. On 24 February 2011 a District Court found, when deciding on the applicant’s detention, that the applicant’s state of health prevented her removal at that time but that the removal could be enforced when her condition allowed it. She was released from detention on the same date. 14. On 28 February 2011 the applicant was admitted to the closed ward of a psychiatric hospital due to psychotic depression. She was admitted at least until 3 March 2011. 15. On 11 March 2011 the police decided to detain the applicant again. However, this was not possible as the applicant was apparently still hospitalised. 16. On 13 March 2011 the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Helsinki. She was diagnosed as severely depressed, psychotic and suicidal. She was apparently hospitalised until 27 May 2011. 17. On 16 March 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, requesting that the removal to Morocco be stayed. On 17 March 2011 the Court indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and held that the applicant should not be removed to Morocco in the light of her physical and mental condition. The Government was requested to submit to the Court independent medical evidence of the applicant’s fitness to travel prior to the implementation of any possible future attempt to remove her. 18. In April 2012 the Government informed the Court about the applicant’s situation. The applicant’s health had improved during the autumn and winter of 2011 but had deteriorated again in February 2012 when the police had asked for a new psychiatric evaluation. Since then the applicant had not been able to eat and had been suffering from severe sleeping problems. Her eating problems and suicidal tendencies were likely to lead again to hospitalisation. 19. On 11 June 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. 20. According to Article 9, paragraph 4, of the Constitution of Finland (Suomen perustuslaki, Finlands grundlag; Act no. 731/1999), the right of foreigners to enter Finland and to remain in the country is regulated by an Act. A foreigner shall not be deported, extradited or returned to another country, if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence, torture or other treatment violating human dignity. 21. Section 147 b of the Aliens Act (ulkomaalaislaki, utlänningslagen; Act no. 301/2004, as amended by Act no. 1214/2013) incorporates into the Finnish legal system the Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more Member States, of third-country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders. The annex of the Decision contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air, including, inter alia, an obligation for the Member States to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health, which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air.