Key facts of the case:
The claimant, a citizen of Turkey with Kurdish descent, entered Austria on 29 November 2011 illegally and filed a claim for international protection the same day. He was interrogated the same day by the police and stated that he already applied for asylum in Germany in 1993 and was extradited to Turkey in 1996. In 1997 he travelled to France via Italy and again applied for Asylum. Within one month he returned to Turkey because his mother was severely diseased. The reasons for his anew departure was the fact, that he was a member of DTP and BDP and of the human rights association IHD. An arrest warrant was issued for the claimant, which he had sent to Austria. He faces a conviction in case of returning to Turkey. In March 2012 he was interrogated by the Federal Asylum Office and stated that he is Kurd and Sunnite and married and has sons. He works on construction sites and in a bakery. His family is still living in Turkey. He does not have relatives in Austria or any other relevant social contacts. His claim was rejected by the Federal Asylum Office and he then appealed to the Asylum Court. The Asylum Court established these facts, apart from the existence of a arrest warrant and stated, that there is no evidence that the claimant would face persecution or punishment in his country of origin.
The Constitutional Court dealt with the EU Charta on Fundamental Rights extensively in its decisions U466/11-18 and U 1836/11-13 (relating to an appeal against decisions of the Asylum Court) both on March 14, 2012. Condensed, it applies in procedures in which Union law plays a role, the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights applies in the same way as the constitution and fundamental rights guaranteed in this EU Charta are in the same way constitutionally guaranteed rights, which can be brought in front of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court also stated in these judgements, that in front of the background of jurisprudence of the ECtHR it neither has concerns regarding the constitutionality of § 41 para 7 Asylum Act 2005, nor did the Asylum Court give the norm on not holding an oral hearing an unconstitutional content. Therefore the omission of an oral hearing in cases, where the facts can be established out of the act in connection with the claim or the inquiry clearly showed, that the contention is contrary to the facts, complies with Art.47 para 2 GRC, if there has already been an administrative procedure, where hearing of parties was granted (Page 18 of 18 of the judgement).