The impartiality of the decision-making and the public officials who make decisions at the Finnish Immigration Service sparks discussion in the social media from time to time. One particular public official who makes asylum decisions and is politically active has especially come under criticism.
The management of the Finnish Immigration Service monitors the legality of decision-making on a regular basis and reports to the Ministry of the Interior on the situation. Spot checks form a central part of the legality control. They are carried out several times a year on the basis of the quality standards developed by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). They are carried out to evaluate, among other things, the legality of individual decisions and how well they adhere to the agency’s guidelines that are based on the decisions of the Finnish administrative courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
So far, no decisions have been found to be against the law or the guidelines in the spot checks. The Finnish Immigration Service carries out checks also outside of the official spot check periods, when necessary.
Legality of asylum decisions and compliance with the current case law are ensured also by the presentation procedure, meaning that decisions are usually taken upon presentation and signed by two people. The most experienced senior advisers can decide clear cases also on their own.
It is allowed to take part in politics – work is carried out under the employer’s instructions
Public officials are allowed to take part in politics. Only officials appointed to military duties within the Finnish Defence Forces or the Border Guard are not allowed to be party members.
The Finnish Immigration Service prioritises competence when recruiting staff. There are no political appointments to office at the Finnish Immigration Service, and the political opinion of a public official is not relevant, as each official follows the law and the employer’s instructions in his or her work.
A public official can be considered disqualified if, for example, he or she or a close person is a party to the matter or can benefit from the decision, or if his or her impartiality is compromised for some other reason (section 28 of the Administrative Procedure Act). Membership in a political party does not alone compromise the impartiality of a public official when his or her task is to decide an administrative matter.
Further information for the media
Esko Repo, Director of Asylum Unit
tel. 0295 430 431, firstname.lastname@migri.fi
