Deportation For Criminal Acts Under Finnish Law
DEPORTATION FOR CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER FINNISH LAW
In Finland, deportation of non-citizens for criminal acts is governed mainly by the Aliens Act (Ulkomaalaislaki). Section 149 provides the grounds for deportation if a non-citizen:
Has been convicted of a crime punishable by at least one year of imprisonment or has committed repeated offences;
Presents a threat to public order or safety; or
Has otherwise abused their residence in a way that justifies removal.
Key Principles:
Deportation decisions involve a proportionality assessment, weighing public safety against personal ties, including family and social integration.
Children’s interests and family life are considered but do not automatically prevent deportation.
Even long-term EU residents or those with deep ties to Finland can be deported if they pose a serious threat.
KEY CASES
1. KHO:2021:102
Facts:
A foreign national was convicted of a serious narcotics offence. The Finnish Immigration Service ordered deportation. The appellant argued that he had children in Finland and a family life that should prevent removal.
Judgment:
The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the deportation. It noted the severity of the crime and potential danger to public order. Family ties were considered but outweighed by the criminal conduct and risk to safety.
Principle:
Serious criminal convictions, especially violent or drug-related crimes, can justify deportation despite the existence of family ties or minor children.
2. KHO:2022:29
Facts:
An individual with repeated criminal offences and poor social adaptation faced deportation. He had a child living in Finland.
Judgment:
The court confirmed deportation, emphasizing recurring criminal behavior and the threat posed to public order. The best interests of the child were considered but did not outweigh public safety concerns.
Principle:
Even strong family connections cannot automatically block deportation if criminal activity is persistent and serious.
3. KHO:2020:67
Facts:
A person who had lived in Finland since youth committed criminal acts. Authorities ordered deportation to his home country.
Judgment:
The court stressed that deportation is possible even for long-term residents but requires an overall proportionality assessment, considering social integration and family ties.
Principle:
Long-term residence reduces but does not eliminate the risk of deportation; proportionality between threat to public order and personal circumstances is crucial.
4. KHO:2012:47
Facts:
A foreign national faced deportation after being fined for assault and concealment offences.
Judgment:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that deportation may be justified for criminal behavior but is subject to judicial review and proportionality. Minor offences alone may not justify removal.
Principle:
Not every criminal conviction warrants deportation; severity and cumulative risk are key factors.
5. KHO:2008:90
Facts:
An individual fined for a minor assault offense contested a deportation order.
Judgment:
The court decided that minor convictions with limited social risk do not automatically justify deportation. Other personal factors, like family ties and integration, must be considered.
Principle:
Deportation is reserved for cases where criminal acts present a substantial threat to public order or safety.
6. KHO:2024:132
Facts:
A Romanian citizen and father of children in Finland was ordered deported for repeated criminal offenses. The case involved EU law considerations due to his citizenship.
Judgment:
The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the deportation. The decision balanced EU residency rights, family life, and public safety, giving priority to the threat posed by criminal behavior.
Principle:
Even EU citizens with family ties can be deported if criminal conduct poses a serious risk; courts must carefully balance rights and risks.
7. Exceptional Example: Finland-born individual with repeated crimes
Facts:
A man born and raised in Finland, with strong community ties and children, had multiple convictions for robbery, assault, and intimidation. Authorities issued a deportation order.
Judgment:
The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed deportation, citing pattern and severity of criminal behavior. Social ties, family, and employment were insufficient to outweigh risk to public order.
Principle:
Repeated and serious criminal offenses can justify deportation even for those born and integrated in Finland, highlighting the strong emphasis on public safety.
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES
Severity and Recurrence: Serious crimes or repeated offences strengthen deportation grounds.
Proportionality: Courts must weigh the threat to public order against family life, social integration, and duration of residence.
Children and Family: Considered but not automatically decisive.
EU Citizens: Deportation possible if a serious threat to public order exists.
Minor Offenses: Insufficient alone; cumulative risk and social ties matter.
Judicial Review: Deportation orders are subject to administrative court scrutiny, ensuring fairness.
This list provides more than five detailed cases, demonstrating how Finnish law balances public safety, proportionality, and family ties in deportation for criminal acts.
RELATED Blog
comments