Reader’s opinion|Even passing the law would violate EU law, even if the law is never applied in practice.
The Constitutional Committee chairman Heikki Vestman (cook) and the previous chairman Johanna Ojala-Niemelä (sd) wrote about the committee’s position on the so-called conversion law (HS Guest pen 3.7.). According to them, the exception law would be applicable domestically despite international human rights obligations, even though the exception law does not eliminate the conflict with human rights obligations from the point of view of international law.
The article – as well as the statement of the Constitutional Law Committee – is based on incorrect assumptions. A strict separation of domestic and international law is not even possible with regard to international human rights treaties, because human rights treaties are an integral part of Finland’s fundamental rights system.
From the point of view of EU law, the division into national and transnational perspectives is even worse. EU law is part of national law and has priority over national legislation. If the national legislation is in conflict with EU law, the authorities must leave the national regulation inapplicable and apply the part of the national law that consists of the provisions of EU law. In practice, the border guards should therefore not apply the Conversion Act and instead follow the Aliens Act, which includes the procedural rules regarding the asylum process under EU law.
In its statement, the Constitutional Law Committee left concrete needs for changes related to EU law to be evaluated by the Administrative Committee. It only required the administrative committee to supplement the legal security regulation. However, the Constitutional Committee did not require access to the court or the suspensive effect of the remedy, i.e. that the applicant must be allowed to stay in the country while the appeal is investigated.
For this reason alone, it is obvious that the end result cannot meet the requirements of EU law for an effective remedy. It follows from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU that a national ban on appeal may not be provided for a violation of EU law.
The proposed law is therefore against EU law. According to the European Court of Justice, the issuing of national regulations incompatible with EU law is also prohibited. Passing the law would thus violate EU law, even if the law is never applied in practice. If the law were to be approved, the authorities should not apply it under EU law. Understanding these starting points is a prerequisite for it being possible to devise solutions for equipping asylum seekers, which can also be effectively applied in practice.
Päivi Leino-Sandberg
professor
Allan Rosas
professor emeritus
Milka Sormunen
research doctor
The reader’s opinions are speeches written by HS readers, selected and edited by the HS editorial board. You can leave an opinion piece or familiarize yourself with the principles of the pieces at www.hs.fi/kiryotamielipidekeisuis/.
#Readers #Opinion #proposed #conversion #law #law
