Supreme Court of
Decision from 10.02.1979
Mr. Oinas, a
Finnish-speaking construction worker, had lived in the
- In his
appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court Mr. Oinas alleged that the
Government of Ǻland had abused its discretionary powers on the ground that
the ability to understand and to speak Swedish was not explicitly mentioned as
a ground for refusing the right of domicile under Section 3 of the 1951
Autonomy Act. The Government of Ǻland disputed the reasoning of Mr. Oinas.
According to its submission, the clause in the Autonomy Act on the right to
appeal against the decisions of the Ǻland Government to the
- The Supreme Administrative Court decided to give a plenary judgment. In this the Court quashed the decision of the Government of Ǻland. In its majority opinion the Court stated that a Finnish citizen who had for at least five years without interruption been residing in Ǻland should be granted the right of domicile, unless weighty reasons existed. The decision of the Ǻland Government caused that certain rights that according to Section 5 of the Constitution Act were to belong equally to all Finnish citizens were restricted. As the 1951 Autonomy Act did not explicitly establish knowledge of Swedish as a precondition for acquiring the right of domicile, this right could not be refused on the grounds invoked by the Government of Ǻland. The case was therefore returned by the Court to the Ǻland Government for reconsideration.