Positive Interim Decision

Our client came to us after receiving a negative decision on an extended residence permit based on entrepreneurship. The Finnish Immigration Service had refused the application following a negative partial decision from the Uusimaa Economic Development Centre and had also ordered our client’s removal from Finland. The decision gave thirty days for voluntary departure.

The case concerned a business that was still developing. Our client had moved from studies into entrepreneurship and had invested significant time, money and personal effort into building an operating bakery in Finland. They were not merely connected to the company on paper, but were a shareholder, a board member and actively responsible for its daily operations.

The difficulty was that the negative assessment relied heavily on the company’s financial position during its initial stage. A new business rarely reaches its full capacity within its first months, and early figures do not always provide a fair picture of whether the business can become sustainable. By the time the final decision was issued, the company’s situation had already developed, but the later progress had not been given sufficient weight.

We appealed both the negative residence permit decision and the removal order. The appeal made clear that the business had continued operating, built customer and contractual relationships, paid wages and other ordinary business expenses, and shown genuine economic activity. The issue was therefore not whether a business plan might succeed in the future, but whether an existing business should be allowed to continue developing while the legality of the decision was examined.

At the same time, we requested an immediate prohibition on enforcement. This part of the case was essential. An appeal would have offered little practical protection if our client had been removed before the Administrative Court could assess the evidence. Their departure would have disrupted the daily operation of the company, endangered existing commercial relationships and potentially destroyed the business whose viability was at the centre of the appeal.

The request was based on the need for effective legal protection and proportionality. When removal could cause serious and practically irreversible consequences, the court must be given the opportunity to examine the case before the decision is carried out. The appeal also raised the importance of assessing the situation according to its current reality rather than relying only on figures from the company’s earliest stage.

The Turku Administrative Court has now issued a positive interim decision. It prohibited the enforcement of the Finnish Immigration Service’s decision until the court has decided the appeal or orders otherwise. The court expressly found that, considering the circumstances presented, enforcement should be prohibited at this stage under section 200 of the Aliens Act.

This is not yet the final decision on the residence permit. The Administrative Court will examine the main appeal separately. It is nevertheless an important result because our client cannot be removed while the court considers whether the business and the updated evidence were assessed correctly.

A negative residence permit decision does not always reflect the situation as it exists by the time the decision is made. Businesses grow, contracts are secured and financial circumstances change. When new and relevant information exists, it must be presented quickly and connected clearly to the legal issues before the court.

For our client, the immediate risk of removal has been stopped. Their business can continue operating while the Administrative Court examines the case properly, without the appeal losing its meaning before a final judgment is given.