Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
The applicant is a national of Turkey belonging to the Kurdish ethnic group. In June 2019, he filed an application for international protection in Austria. He explained that in 2016, he had been arrested in Turkey because he had been falsely accused of fighting against the Turkish forces in an incident in December 2015 and had been shot. He was then held in prison for about five months, where he was also tortured. His prison sentence was increased at the last hearing at the end of December 2018. There are also two other cases pending against him. If he returned, he would be arrested immediately.
In February 2020, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum rejected his application for international protection and issued, inter alia, a return decision.
The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum - without holding an oral hearing - in October 2020. According to the Court, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum had rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant had not been able to credibly demonstrate that he had been subjected to individual persecution by state organs in the country of origin until his departure or that he would be threatened with such persecution in the event of his return.
The present appeal, based on Article 144 of the Federal Constitution, is directed against this decision, alleging a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and requesting the annulment of the contested decision.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The applicant essentially argues that the Federal Administrative Court failed to establish the relevant facts of the case. He stated that the Federal Administrative Court did not sufficiently deal with the background of the complainant's criminal convictions as the statements made in this context were contradictory. Furthermore, the Federal Administrative Court did not take into account a clinical-psychological report of 15 July 2020 submitted during the appeal proceedings. The question thus was, whether waiving the oral proceedings was permissible in this context.
Outcome of the case:
According to the Constitutional Court, the reasoning of the contested decision proves to be insufficient and not comprehensible. The challenged decision is therefore regarded as arbitrary. Waving the oral proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court is stipulated in § 21 (7) Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum Procedures Act (BFA-VG). The waiver of an oral hearing - provided that an administrative procedure has already taken place in the course of which the parties were heard - is in any case in line with Art. 47 (2) CFR in those cases in which the facts of the case appear to be clarified from the file in connection with the complaint or it emerges beyond doubt from the investigations that the submission is contrary to the facts. In the present case, the facts of the case are not to be regarded as clarified in the meaning of § 21 (7) Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum Procedures Act according to the Constitutional Court. The files have indicated that the oral hearing could lead to a further clarification of the facts in the present case. The Federal Administrative Court should therefore not have refrained from holding an oral hearing. The complainant's right to an oral hearing pursuant to Art. 47 (2) CFR was therefore violated.
The challenged decision violates the complainant's constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment of aliens (Article I para. 1 of the Federal Constitutional Act, Federal Law Journal No. 390/1973) and the right to a hearing pursuant to Article 47 para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The Constitutional Court set aside the decision and the Federal Government (Federal Minister of the Interior) is obliged to reimburse the complainant, for the attention of his legal representative, the costs of the proceedings within 14 days
For the proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court, § 21 (7) Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum Procedures Act (BFA-VG) regulates the waiver of oral proceedings. The waiver of an oral hearing is in any case in accordance with Art. 47 (2) CFR - provided that an administrative procedure has already taken place in which the parties were heard - in those cases in which the facts of the case appear to be clarified from the file in connection with the complaint or it is clear from the investigations that the submission is contrary to the facts (cf. VfSlg 19.632/2012).
As can be seen from the above, the material facts of the case are not to be regarded as clarified in the meaning of § 21 (7) Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum Procedures Act. The files have indicated that the oral discussion would lead to the expectation of a further clarification of the facts in the present case. The Federal Administrative Court should therefore not have refrained from holding an oral hearing. The complainant's right to hold an oral hearing pursuant to Art. 47 (2) CFR has therefore been violated (cf. VfGH 23.2.2015, E155/2014; 10.6.2016, E2108/2015; 24.11.2016, E1079/2016; 13.3.2019, E4744/2018; 23.9.2019, E1494/2019).
Thus, the challenged decision violated the applicant's constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment of aliens among themselves pursuant to Art. I (1) of the Federal Constitutional Law implementing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the right to a hearing pursuant to Art. 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Für das Verfahren vor dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht regelt §21 Abs7 BFA-VG den Entfall der mündlichen Verhandlung. Das Absehen von einer mündlichen Verhandlung steht – sofern zuvor bereits ein Verwaltungsverfahren stattgefunden hat, in dessen Rahmen Parteiengehör gewährt wurde – jedenfalls in jenen Fällen im Einklang mit Art47 Abs2 GRC, in denen der Sachverhalt aus der Aktenlage in Verbindung mit der Beschwerde geklärt erscheint oder sich aus den Ermittlungen zweifelsfrei ergibt, dass das Vorbringen tatsachenwidrig ist (vgl VfSlg 19.632/2012).
Wie sich aus den obigen Ausführungen ergibt, ist der entscheidungswesentliche Sachverhalt nicht als geklärt im Sinne des §21 Abs7 BFA-VG anzusehen. Die Akten haben erkennen lassen, dass die mündliche Erörterung eine weitere Klärung des Sachverhaltes im vorliegenden Fall erwarten ließe. Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht hätte daher nicht von der Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung absehen dürfen. Der Beschwerdeführer ist daher in seinem Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Art47 Abs2 GRC verletzt worden (vgl VfGH 23.2.2015, E155/2014; 10.6.2016, E2108/2015; 24.11.2016, E1079/2016; 13.3.2019, E4744/2018; 23.9.2019, E1494/2019).
Der Beschwerdeführer ist somit durch das angefochtene Erkenntnis im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht auf Gleichbehandlung von Fremden untereinander gemäß ArtI Abs1 BVG zur Durchführung des Internationalen Übereinkommens über die Beseitigung aller Formen rassischer Diskriminierung und im Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Art47 Abs2 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union verletzt worden.
