Table 11: Decisions by the Supreme Administrative Court132 2011 2012132 Appeal rejected 11 5 Appeal accepted 2 2 Case annulled 1 1 Total 15 7 Source: Migri, September 2012 3.3.2.4 OTHER PROCEDURAL ASPECTS The Supreme Administrative Court dealt with the legal nature and the permanence of a citizenship status determination in case KHO:2011:77133 of September 2011. The case also touches upon deprivation of Finnish nationality which will be further discussed in section 4.3.3 below. In this case, Migri on its own initiative took a new decision and determined a child, whom it had earlier determined to be a Finnish national in the determination of citizenship status procedure, as stateless. The child was born in Finland out of wedlock to a mother who was a Gambian national. There was no information about the father. Migri had first concluded that the child could not acquire the mother’s nationality according to the nationality legislation of Gambia. As the child would otherwise be stateless, he was granted Finnish nationality by birth. Later on, it turned out through DNA tests that the father of the child was a national of Gambia who resided in Finland. The parents however did not want to establish the paternity of the man to the child. According to the information in the possession of Migri, a child acquires the nationality of Gambia from a Gambian father. Therefore, Migri considered that the child would have acquired Gambian nationality from his father had the paternity been established. In light of this information, Migri subsequently took a new decision regarding the citizenship status of the child and decided that the child was stateless for reasons on the part of his parents and therefore did not have a right to Finnish nationality. The mother of the child appealed the decision of Migri to the Administrative Court of Oulu, requesting the second decision of Migri to be repealed and the child to be declared to be and have been a Finnish national since birth. The Administrative Court accepted the appeal, stating that the first decision of Migri when it determined the child to be a national of Finland was based on at the time available and correct information and was a legally valid decision. Migri appealed the decision of the Administrative Court to the Supreme Administrative Court, stating that a citizenship status decision is not a decision granting nationality but a statement regarding the citizenship in light of the available information. Migri referred to Section 50 of the Administrative Procedure Act stating that a new decision was allowed because of the fault of the applicant and because of the obvious nature of the error. Migri further pointed out that Finnish nationality cannot be a benefit which can be obtained by hiding relevant information or by providing false information, and that administrative decisions regarding citizenship must be available for changes in order to guarantee that the information in public registers is correct. Migri also stated that it later learned that in fact, Gambian nationality can be acquired from any parent who is a national of Gambia by birth. In addition, Migri had learned that the paternity of the father to the child had later on been established. Finally, Migri concluded that the child would have acquired Gambian nationality from both of his parents. The Supreme Administrative Court endorsed the decision of the Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court emphasized the Constitutional provisions on protection under law and protection of rights and liberties. The court stated that a citizenship status decision can be appealed in accordance of Section 41 of the Nationality Act and that if it has not been appealed, the decision will become legally 36 132 Ibid. 133 KHO:2011:77, 16.9.2011/2617, available at http://www.finlex.fi MAPPING STATELESSNESS IN FINL AND