The Parliamentary Ombudsman: The effects of information security requirements for remote participation in asylum interviews on choosing a legal counsel need to be assessed

Parliamentary Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Jari Råman has assessed the Finnish Immigration Service’s practice according to which an asylum seeker’s legal counsel may participate in the asylum interview remotely only if the counsel’s organisation has concluded a separate information security agreement with the service.

The Ombudsman finds that the practice is not unlawful and does not exceed the discretion of the Finnish Immigration Service. However, he considers the agreement-based model problematic and urges the service to assess its necessity and effects on the right to choose a legal counsel.

The decision emphasises that ensuring the information security of asylum interviews is extremely important. However, the means used for doing so must be proportionate to the objective pursued. According to the Ombudsman, the legislation requires ensuring information security but does not specifically oblige the use of a contractual procedure. Therefore, it is a question of an administrative decision made by the Finnish Immigration Service itself.

The Ombudsman draws attention to the fact that, in practice, the agreement serves as a condition for remote participation. In terms of its effects, the arrangement is partly similar to an administrative authorisation. This may in itself raise unnecessary doubts about whether the administrative procedure restricts the choice of legal counsel. The contractual relationship between the legal counsel and the authority is exceptional, as the counsel primarily only acts on the assignment of their client.

Although the contractual requirement does not formally restrict the choice of counsel, it may in practice have such impacts. If no agreement has been made, the counsel must attend the asylum interview in person. This may make participation more difficult, for example, when the counsel and the client are in different localities or the asylum interview is arranged at short notice.

According to the Ombudsman, it remains unclear whether the current agreement model is necessary to ensure information security or whether the same objective could be achieved by less restrictive means. He notes that lighter information security commitments or enabling remote participation from the authority’s premises in different localities could sufficiently ensure the implementation of information security while reducing practical obstacles to the participation of the counsel. At the same time, he notes that lawyers are already bound by strict information security obligations.

The Ombudsman did not find any unlawful conduct in the matter and did not take any action. However, he brought his views to the attention of the Finnish Immigration Service and asked the service to assess its practices. The service must report on any measures it takes by the end of September 2026.

In addition, the Ombudsman drew attention to the authority’s obligation to respond appropriately to inquiries made to it.

Decision EOAK/2047/2025 is available (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi

For more information, please contact Principal Legal Adviser Jari Pirjola, tel. +358 9 432 3361.