Discontinuance decision; Subjects: RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, FINLAND; [CRC: Kinderrechtskonvention, Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes; Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant; Convenzione sui diritti del fanciullo]
Erwägungen (10 Absätze)
E. 1 The authors of the communication are M.S. and Z.A.S., nationals of Yemen born on 1 January 1976 and 1 January 1985, respectively. They submit the communication on behalf of their children M.A.S., M.A.S., N.A.S. and M.A.S., nationals of Yemen born on 26 June 2005, 8 April 2009, 12 April 2013 and 26 December 2016, respectively. The authors allege that the State party has violated the rights of their children under articles 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 22 of the Convention. The authors are represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 12 February 2016.
E. 2 M.S. was persecuted in Yemen and, in 2016, was forced to leave the country. On
23 February 2018, Finland granted him a residence permit based on subsidiary protection.
On 9 August 2018, Z.A.S. and the four children applied for family reunification through
applications submitted to the Embassy of Finland in Cairo. Due to financial difficulties, they
could not continue to reside in Egypt and were forced to return to Yemen. In June 2018, M.S.
was involved in a car accident in Finland and lost his ability to work. On 5 October 2020, a
doctor concluded that the prognosis for his ability to work was bad, and permanent incapacity
was likely, due to the injuries sustained and his diagnosed long-term depression. As he cannot
perform physical work and does not have Finnish language skills, his employment
opportunities are limited. He has not seen his family since 2016, and the youngest of the
children has never met his father. Z.A.S. and the four children have limited access to food
and are forced to constantly change their place of residence within Yemen to avoid
persecution. On 9 May 2019, the Finnish Immigration Service decided not to grant residence
permits to them due to M.S.’s low income, since he received only social allowances. On
* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-eighth session (13–31 January 2025).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Suzanne Aho, Aïssatou Alassane Sidikou, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff,
Rinchen Chophel, Rosaria Correa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Philip Jaffé, Otani Mikiko, Luis Ernesto
Pedernera Reyna, Ann Skelton, Velina Todorova, Benoit Van Keirsbilck and Ratou Zara.
United Nations
CRC/C/98/D/203/2022
Convention on the
Rights of the Child
Distr.: General
10 February 2025
Original: English
CRC/C/98/D/203/2022
2
GE.25-01611
26 November 2020, the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court dismissed an appeal filed against
that decision, stating that the circumstances of Z.A.S. and the four children and the state of
health of M.S. could not be considered to constitute exceptionally serious grounds allowing
for a derogation from the income requirement. The Court added that M.S. was still capable
of light physical work, which meant that he could earn income, and that the family could
reunite outside Finland. The Court underlined that the decision not to grant a derogation from
the income requirement did not violate the principle of the best interests of the child, since
the four children were under the care of Z.A.S. and were not in danger. On 7 September 2021,
the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the authors’ appeal.
E. 3 On 2 December 2022, the Committee, acting through its working group on communications, registered the communication.
E. 4 On 2 February 2023, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested that the admissibility be examined separately from the merits.
E. 5 On 5 May 2023, the authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility.
E. 6 On 25 January 2024, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
E. 7 On 4 June 2024, the authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits.
E. 8 On 2 September 2024, the authors reported that Z.A.S. and her four children had been granted residence permits for Finland on the ground of family ties and had arrived in Finland.
E. 9 On 16 December 2024, the State party requested the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the present communication, as the reasons for submitting it had become moot in the light of the continuous residence permits granted to Z.A.S. and her four children.
E. 10 At a meeting on 27 January 2025, the Committee, taking into account that Z.A.S. and her four children had been granted continuous residence permits and had been reunited with M.S., considered that the case had become moot and decided to discontinue consideration of communication No. 203/2022, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-01611 (E) 100225 100225 Committee on the Rights of the Child Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, concerning communication No. 203/2022*, ** Communication submitted by: M.S. and Z.A.S. (represented by counsel, Hanna Laari) Alleged victims: M.A.S., M.A.S., N.A.S. and M.A.S. State party: Finland Date of communication: 6 September 2022 Subject matter: Reunification of four children living in Yemen with their father in Finland Articles of the Convention: 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 22 1. The authors of the communication are M.S. and Z.A.S., nationals of Yemen born on 1 January 1976 and 1 January 1985, respectively. They submit the communication on behalf of their children M.A.S., M.A.S., N.A.S. and M.A.S., nationals of Yemen born on 26 June 2005, 8 April 2009, 12 April 2013 and 26 December 2016, respectively. The authors allege that the State party has violated the rights of their children under articles 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 22 of the Convention. The authors are represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 12 February 2016. 2. M.S. was persecuted in Yemen and, in 2016, was forced to leave the country. On 23 February 2018, Finland granted him a residence permit based on subsidiary protection. On 9 August 2018, Z.A.S. and the four children applied for family reunification through applications submitted to the Embassy of Finland in Cairo. Due to financial difficulties, they could not continue to reside in Egypt and were forced to return to Yemen. In June 2018, M.S. was involved in a car accident in Finland and lost his ability to work. On 5 October 2020, a doctor concluded that the prognosis for his ability to work was bad, and permanent incapacity was likely, due to the injuries sustained and his diagnosed long-term depression. As he cannot perform physical work and does not have Finnish language skills, his employment opportunities are limited. He has not seen his family since 2016, and the youngest of the children has never met his father. Z.A.S. and the four children have limited access to food and are forced to constantly change their place of residence within Yemen to avoid persecution. On 9 May 2019, the Finnish Immigration Service decided not to grant residence permits to them due to M.S.’s low income, since he received only social allowances. On
* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-eighth session (13–31 January 2025). ** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Suzanne Aho, Aïssatou Alassane Sidikou, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff, Rinchen Chophel, Rosaria Correa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Philip Jaffé, Otani Mikiko, Luis Ernesto Pedernera Reyna, Ann Skelton, Velina Todorova, Benoit Van Keirsbilck and Ratou Zara. United Nations CRC/C/98/D/203/2022 Convention on the Rights of the Child Distr.: General 10 February 2025 Original: English CRC/C/98/D/203/2022 2 GE.25-01611 26 November 2020, the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court dismissed an appeal filed against that decision, stating that the circumstances of Z.A.S. and the four children and the state of health of M.S. could not be considered to constitute exceptionally serious grounds allowing for a derogation from the income requirement. The Court added that M.S. was still capable of light physical work, which meant that he could earn income, and that the family could reunite outside Finland. The Court underlined that the decision not to grant a derogation from the income requirement did not violate the principle of the best interests of the child, since the four children were under the care of Z.A.S. and were not in danger. On 7 September 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the authors’ appeal. 3. On 2 December 2022, the Committee, acting through its working group on communications, registered the communication. 4. On 2 February 2023, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested that the admissibility be examined separately from the merits. 5. On 5 May 2023, the authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. 6. On 25 January 2024, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 7. On 4 June 2024, the authors provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. 8. On 2 September 2024, the authors reported that Z.A.S. and her four children had been granted residence permits for Finland on the ground of family ties and had arrived in Finland. 9. On 16 December 2024, the State party requested the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the present communication, as the reasons for submitting it had become moot in the light of the continuous residence permits granted to Z.A.S. and her four children. 10. At a meeting on 27 January 2025, the Committee, taking into account that Z.A.S. and her four children had been granted continuous residence permits and had been reunited with M.S., considered that the case had become moot and decided to discontinue consideration of communication No. 203/2022, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.