Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Finland / Supreme Administrative Court / KHO:2018:52; Decision 1762; 3891/4/17

X v the Finnish Immigration Service
Policy area
Asylum and migration
Borders and Visa
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Administrative Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
13/04/2018
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:FI:KHO:2018:52

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Title I: Dignity

Article 1 - Human dignity

Title II: Freedoms

Article 7 - Respect for private and family life

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Finland / Supreme Administrative Court / KHO:2018:52; Decision 1762; 3891/4/17

    Key facts of the case:

    The Finnish Immigration Service had rejected X’s asylum application which was based on a fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation. The administrative court upheld the decision, after having held an oral hearing in the case. Both the Immigration Service and the administrative court found that the applicant’s claims related to his homosexuality were not credible. When appealing to the Supreme Administrative Court X submitted as evidence a photograph and a video recording of intimate acts between himself and another man. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court assessed the admissibility of such evidence, along with the applicant’s right to asylum or subsidiary protection.

    Regarding the assessment of facts and circumstances in the case, the court applied the general rules concerning administrative procedures as provided for in the Aliens Act (301/2004) and the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (586/1996). The authorities have a duty to investigate the matter and review all evidence available. Where necessary, the appellate authority can request the parties to submit additional evidence or obtain evidence on its own initiative.

    The court also relied on the rulings of the CJEU in the cases of C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13, A et al. and C-473/16, F, which concern the interpretation of the Qualification Directive in the light of the Charter and the limits imposed on national authorities when assessing an asylum claim based on sexual orientation. It also referred to the UNHCR guidelines on claims to refugee status based on sexual orientation.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    Admissibility of photographs and video recordings of sexual acts as evidence in a case where an asylum application is based on fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant’s own testimony is the primary source of evidence when assessing the credibility of a claim related to sexual orientation. A court cannot require applicants to provide photographs or video recordings of intimate acts in support of their asylum application based on sexual orientation. Such evidence would of its nature infringe human dignity and the right to private life, even in cases where the persons had voluntarily agreed to being filmed.

    The Supreme Administrative Court then noted that in the national administrative procedure, free evaluation of evidence is the general rule. The way evidence is presented has not been restricted, and there are no detailed rules concerning analysis on the probative value of evidence. However, submitting photographs or video recordings of sexual acts as evidence is problematic with regard to the protection of the fundamental rights of human dignity and the right to private life. The court, nevertheless, found that because of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and the protection of the procedural rights of the applicant, the court cannot completely refuse to accept such evidence when submitted on the applicant’s own initiative and in order to support his claim for international protection. The court emphasised that the main issue was the assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s statements concerning his declared sexual orientation and sexual identity, not the actual practice of homosexual acts. In this case the credibility assessment was based on the applicant’s statements made in the various stages of the application process and in the oral hearing before the administrative court. The photograph and video recording provided by the applicant could not undermine the findings of the credibility assessment based on the applicant’s statements and his oral hearing. . Such material had no role in the assessment and it did not thus support the applicant’s claim to international protection. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court and dismissed X’s appeal.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The Supreme Administrative Court holds that an authority or a court cannot expect applicants to present photographic or video evidence in matters concerning claims to international protection on grounds of sexual orientation. According to the CJEU case law, reviewed above in section 4, this would of its nature infringe human dignity and the right to protection of private life of the applicant and the other persons appearing in the photos or videos, even in cases where the persons had voluntarily agreed to being filmed.

    Next, the court must assess how to respond to this type of photographic evidence in a case where the applicant himself wants to submit such evidence in support of his asylum claim based on sexual orientation.

    The CJEU (Grand Chamber) found, in the joined cases A et al. (C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13) discussed above, that Article 4 of the former Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC, read in the light of Article 1 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of the said assessment, the acceptance by the authorities of evidence such as the performance by the applicant for asylum concerned of homosexual acts, his submission to “tests” with a view to establishing his homosexuality or the production by him of films of such acts.

    The Supreme Administrative Court notes that in the national administrative procedure, free evaluation of evidence is the general rule, the way evidence is presented has not been restricted, and there are no detailed rules concerning analysis on the probative value of evidence. However, as noted above, showing intimate details of the private life of persons and submitting such material as evidence could be problematic with regard to the protection of the fundamental rights of human dignity and the right to private life. In such a case, the court needs to decide whether it should refuse to accept such evidence, when submitted to the court on a party’s own initiative. The Supreme Administrative Court finds that, because of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and the protection of the procedural rights of the applicant, it cannot be concluded that the Supreme Administrative Court could completely refuse to accept such evidence when submitted on the applicant’s own initiative and in order to support his claim for international protection.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Korkein hallinto-oikeus toteaa, ettei viranomainen eikä tuomioistuin voi edellyttää hakijoita esittämään kuva- tai videoaineistoa seksuaaliseen suuntautumiseen perustuvissa kansainvälistä suojelua koskevissa asioissa. Tämä olisi edellä luvussa 4 selostetun unionin tuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännön mukaisesti omiaan loukkaamaan valittajan ja kuvissa esiintyvien muiden henkilöiden ihmisarvoa ja yksityiselämän suojaa, vaikka kuvaaminen olisi perustunut vapaaehtoisuuteen.

    Seuraavaksi on arvioitava, miten tämäntyyppiseen kuva-aineistoon on suhtauduttava silloin, kun valittaja itse haluaa toimittaa sellaista seksuaaliseen suuntautumiseensa perustuvan turvapaikkaperusteensa tueksi.

    Unionin tuomioistuin (suuri jaosto) katsoi edellä selostetussa tuomiossaan yhdistetyissä asioissa A ym. (C-148/13, C-149/13 ja C-150/13), että aiemman määritelmädirektiivin 2004/83/EY 4 artiklaa, luettuna perusoikeuskirjan 1 artiklan valossa, on tulkittava siten, että se on esteenä sille, että mainitun selvityksen yhteydessä toimivaltaiset kansalliset viranomaiset hyväksyvät näytöksi esimerkiksi sen, että asianomainen turvapaikanhakija suorittaa homoseksuaalisia tekoja, alistuu "testeihin" homoseksuaalisuutensa selvittämiseksi tai esittää todisteina videotallenteita tällaisista teoista.

    Korkein hallinto-oikeus toteaa, että kansallisessa hallintoprosessissa yleisperiaatteena olevan vapaan todistusteorian mukaisesti todisteiden esittämistapaa ei ole rajoitettu eikä todisteiden todistusarvon harkintaa ole yksityiskohtaisesti säännelty. Edellä todetulla tavalla henkilöiden yksityiselämän intiimien asioiden kuvaaminen ja tällaisen aineiston luovuttaminen todisteeksi voisi kuitenkin olla ongelmallista perusoikeuksina turvattujen ihmisarvon loukkaamattomuuden ja yksityiselämän suojan kannalta. Tällöin tulee ratkaistavaksi, onko tällaisen tuomioistuimelle oma-aloitteisesti toimitetun todistusaineiston vastaanottamisesta kieltäydyttävä. Korkein hallinto-oikeus katsoo, että vapaan todistelun periaatteen ja valittajan menettelyllisten oikeuksien kannalta asiassa ei ole mahdollista päätyä johtopäätökseen, jonka mukaan korkein hallinto-oikeus voisi kokonaan kieltäytyä ottamasta vastaan valittajan nyt oma-aloitteisesti esittämää aineistoa, jolla hän pyrkii osoittamaan olevansa oikeutettu kansainväliseen suojeluun.