Eastern border | Three legal scholars wonder about the new limitation that appeared in the “Conversion Act”.

Three In his recent statements, the legal scholar draws attention to the contradiction in the Constitutional Committee’s latest statement on the so-called conversion law.

In their opinion, the Constitutional Law Committee did not receive from the Administrative Committee the legal protection procedure for the aspirants to the extent that it itself required.

However, the Constitutional Law Committee approved the administrative committee’s draft report in its second statement on Friday.

This is clear from what has just come out from expert committee statements.

It is about a new limitation that appeared in the law during the administrative committee’s consideration: the draft report states that only those who have crossed the Finnish border can complain about their conversion.

Thus, the right of appeal would not apply to those whose crossing the border has been successfully prevented at the border in one way or another.

Legal scholars thinks that the solution contradicts the first statement of the Constitutional Law Committee.

In its first statement in June, the Constitutional Law Committee stated that “the Administrative Committee must change the regulation and supplement the legal protection of those seeking to enter the country with an expressly stipulated ex post legal protection procedure, so that the draft law can be enacted as a limited exception referred to in Section 73 of the Constitution”.

The committee therefore required legal protection procedures as a condition for deviating from the constitution.

“

Thus, the right of appeal would not apply to those whose crossing the border has been successfully prevented at the border in one way or another.

In practice, the legal protection procedure here means the right to some kind of appeal. Among the legal scholars who gave a statement on Friday, professor Janne Salminena professor Tuomas Ojanen and a professor Olli Mäenpää everyone draws attention to the word pair of the requirement “aspiring to land”.

In their opinion, it means all those who aspire to the country – including those whose entry is denied.

“The Constitutional Law Committee has expressly considered that all those aspiring to the country have limited needs for subsequent legal protection,” Salminen writes.

“However, in the current draft of the report, the possibility of subsequent legal protection would be given to a clearly more limited part of the people who aspire to land, only to those who will be removed from the country,” he continues.

Ojanen also thinks that it is clear that those who aspire to land also mean those who cannot enter the country at the border.

“The government’s proposal does not include a definition of the term ‘land aspirant’, but in my view, the term primarily means people whose access to Finnish territory and Finnish jurisdiction would be attempted to be prevented in accordance with section 4, subsection 1 of the draft law,” he writes.

“

So now it’s about under what conditions the newcomer could apply for an amendment to the decision.

In the media The law named conversion law is later called “the government’s proposal to the parliament as a law on temporary measures to combat instrumentalized immigration”.

The government wants to enact a law to prepare for a situation where Russia would organize a large number of immigrants at the border in a short period of time.

Pursuant to the law, the application for asylum at the Finnish border could be temporarily suspended and the arrivals turned away. The law includes exceptions: those in a particularly vulnerable position would be allowed to seek asylum. Making a solution would be left to the border guards at the border.

So now it’s about under what conditions the newcomer could apply for an amendment to the decision.

The “Translation Act” is regulated in the procedure for enacting the Constitution. Approving its content requires a two-thirds majority in parliament, and making it urgent requires a five-sixths majority.

The administrative committee will issue its report on Monday and the law will be voted on on Tuesday and Friday. The decisive role is played by the Sdp, which demanded this second opinion of the Constitutional Committee and gives it a lot of weight.

Administrative Committee the draft report is still secret, but some of its contents will be revealed from the opinion of the Constitutional Law Committee and expert opinions that are public.

According to the Constitutional Law Committee’s statement, the administrative committee’s draft report states that “preventing entry to the country refers to measures that prevent the entry of persons into the territory of Finland and the jurisdiction of Finland”.

“Since in such a case the person is not yet under Finnish jurisdiction but on the Russian side, the administrative committee does not propose a legal remedy to be extended to the processing of his case,” the statement reads.

In its statement, the Constitutional Law Committee does not take a position on the demarcation. The chairman of the committee contacted by HS via text message Heikki Vestman (kok), however, confirms that the Constitutional Law Committee blesses this solution.

“The assessment is all clear from the committee’s statement – including the fact that the exception law is only applicable in Finland’s jurisdiction,” Vestman answered HS’s question.

“

The administrative committee will issue its report on Monday and the law will be voted on on Tuesday and Friday.

A contradiction were also brought up by the MPs of the Constitutional Law Committee Fatim Diarra (green) and Anna Kontula (left).

“Some of the problems in the regulation proposed by the administrative committee must have arisen by accident, such as the fact that the scope of the intended legal remedy is different in the administrative committee’s proposal than what the constitutional committee requires,” they wrote in their dissenting opinion.

According to HS’s information, the administrative committee specifically wanted to limit the right in this way, so at least in that sense it is not an accident.

Finland the person who got to the side could apply for a reconsideration of the removal from the country, the administrative committee proposes in its draft report.

It would be requested in writing from the Border Guard within 30 days of leaving the country. The removal would be enforced regardless of the request for reconsideration. The claim should be treated as urgent.

The administrative committee also proposes a provision in the draft law, according to which the person to be removed from the country should be informed that he can request a reassessment of the removal from the country.

Among the jurists, Salminen, for example, considered this an insufficient means of legal protection.

According to him, national law cannot remove rights guaranteed in EU law, such as the right to seek asylum and the prohibition of refoulement.

“Individuals have the right to effective legal remedies in court as referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union,” he writes in his statement.

Tuomas Ojanen, on the other hand, criticized the fact that the reassessment would be done by the same body that removed the person from the country, i.e. the Border Guard.

“Such a ‘legal remedy’ limited to the authority would, however, be in practice only an extension of actual administrative activities, which in itself does not constitute an effective legal remedy,” he writes.