Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 19.09.2011 11/0570/2 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed foreigner's extension claim because one-year stay limit expired before application decision.

Case Number Turun HAO 19.09.2011 11/0570/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Turku dismissed the applicant's request for a residence permit extension based on au pair work. The applicant had worked as an au pair for over eight months but failed to submit the extension application before the initial one-year permit expired. The court ruled that the statutory one-year limit for au pair stays had already elapsed at the time of the police decision, rendering the extension request inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Ulkomaalaislaki 5 §; Ulkomaalaislaki 54 § 1 mom: A residence permit extension for an au pair is not granted if the initial one-year statutory limit has expired before the application is decided.

Keywords

AI generated
residence permit extension au pair status one year limit administrative exhaustion foreigner's act permit expiry police decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Ulkomaalaislaki 5 §
Ulkomaalaislaki 54 § 1 mom
Ulkomaalaislaki 54 § 1 mom
AI generated
kho-precedent_1997_130
Foreign national's continuous residence interrupted by study abroad breaks eligibility for permanent residence permit.
kho-precedent_1997_122
Continuous residence requirement for permanent residence permit met despite foreign assignment period.
admin_2006_helsinki__1527
Permanent residence permit denied because three years had not passed since completion of mandatory prison sentence.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2019:148
Supreme Administrative Court allows citizenship claim by finding Nepal stay was due to a weighty personal reason under Citizenship Act.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2023:110
Permanent residence permit denied due to prior permit revocation is invalid under continuous residence requirement.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Maahanmuuttovirasto oli myöntänyt Filippiineiltä kotoisin olevalle A:lle oleskeluluvan au pairina toimimisen perusteella ajalle 14.12.2009 - 30.8.2010. Hakiessaan poliisilaitokselta jatko-oleskelulupaa samalla perusteella A oli toiminut Suomessa au pairina yli kahdeksan kuukauden ajan. Suomen allekirjoittaman, mutta ratifioimattoman Euroopan neuvoston au pair -sijoitusta koskevan sopimuksen (European Treaty Series No 68) pohjalta syntyneen vakiintuneen hallintokäytännön mukaan oleskelulupa myönnetään au pairille yhdeksi vuodeksi. Koska yhden vuoden määräaika oli kulunut umpeen poliisilaitoksen ratkaistessa A:n jatko-oleskelulupahakemuksen, poliisilaitos oli voinut jättää au pair -sopimuksen perusteella haetun jatko-oleskeluluvan myöntämättä.

Ulkomaalaislaki 5 §

Ulkomaalaislaki 54 § 1 mom