Austria / Constitutional Court / E2390/2022

Stateless Palestinian from Syria, Austria
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
13/06/2023
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:AT:VFGH:2023:E2390.2022
  • Austria / Constitutional Court / E2390/2022

    Key facts of the case:

    The minor applicant is a stateless Palestinian from Syria who professes the Islamic faith. In April 2021, she filed an application for international protection in Austria. She had fled with her aunt and uncle because of the war in Syria and her father's illness. She was afraid of living in Syria because she feared being abducted and/or mistreated. Before she left, a girl from her school had disappeared, which is why she is now also afraid to go to school. In August 2021, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum rejected her application for asylum, recognised her status as a beneficiary of subsidiary protection and granted her a residence permit for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection for one year. In its decision of 1 August 2022, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of the asylum application without holding an oral hearing. In its reasoning, the Federal Administrative Court stated that the minor complainant had not succeeded in substantiating an asylum-relevant persecution due to her uncle's refusal of military service, her departure and her application for asylum. Furthermore, it could not be assumed with significant probability that the minor complainant was threatened with persecution relevant to asylum. The present appeal, based on Article 144 of the Federal Constitution, is directed against this decision, alleging a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The Court raised the question, whether the Federal Administrative Court failed to establish the relevant facts of the case due to the waiver of an oral hearing.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Constitutional Court found that the Federal Administrative Court failed to investigate the situation of women or the sexual violence against women in Syria. Against the background of the country reports, the Federal Administrative Court failed to provide reasoning as to why assaults or gender-based violence would only affect single children or women, according to the Constitutional Court. For this reason alone, the Constitutional Court found the Federal Administrative Court’s findings arbitrary. The Federal Administrative Court’s judgment further breaches Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The oral proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court may be waved under § 21 (7) of the 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 Article 47 (2) of the Charter in those cases in which the facts of the case appear to be clari from the file in connection with the complaint or it emerges beyond doubt from the investigations that the submission is contrary to the facts. If the asylum seeker bases her fear of persecution on the interference with her sexual self-determination, §20 (2) Asylum Act 2005 stipulates that she must be questioned before the administrative authority by representatives of the same sex, and in that before the Federal Administrative Court she must be heard by judges of the same sex. An exception to this rule is only possible if the party expressly demands otherwise. According to the Constitutional Court, the files thus indicated that the oral discussion had been necessary to further clarify the facts of the case - in particular the question of whether the minor complainant had male relatives still living in the country of origin and to the question of compliance with the requirement under § 20 of the Asylum Act 2005 according to which she must had been interviewed by persons of the same sex. The Federal Administrative Court should therefore not have refrained from holding an oral hearing. The minor complainant's right to an oral hearing pursuant to Article 47 (2) of the Charter was therefore also violated.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    Furthermore, the Federal Administrative Court is also charged with a violation of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union […]:

    For the proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court, §21 (7) BFA-VG regulates the omission of an oral hearing. The waiver of an oral hearing is - if an administrative procedure has already taken place in which the parties were heard - in any case in accordance with Art 47 (2) [of the Charter] 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 argument is contrary to the facts […].

    However, refraining from an oral hearing if this is required to ensure a decision of the adjudicating court that meets the requirements of Art 47 (2) [of the Charter]for a fair trial constitutes a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right under Art47 (2) [of the Charter] […] 4.5 The Federal Administrative Court should therefore not have refrained from holding an oral hearing. The minor complainant's right to an oral hearing under Art 47 (2) [of the Charter] has therefore also been violated […].

    The underage complainant's constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment of aliens among themselves […] and her right to an oral hearing pursuant to Art 47 (2) [of the Charter] has thus been violated by the challenged decision.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Weiters ist dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht auch eine Verletzung von Art47 Abs2 Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (im Folgenden: GRC) vorzuwerfen:

    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 […].

    Das Absehen von einer mündlichen Verhandlung, wenn diese zur Gewährleistung einer den Anforderungen des Art47 Abs2 GRC an ein faires Verfahren entsprechenden Entscheidung des erkennenden Gerichtes geboten ist, stellt aber eine Verletzung im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht gemäß Art47 Abs2 GRC dar […]

    Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht hätte daher nicht von der Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung absehen dürfen. Die minderjährige Beschwerdeführerin ist daher auch in ihrem Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Art47 Abs2 GRC verletzt worden […]

    Die minderjährige Beschwerdeführerin ist somit durch das angefochtene Erkenntnis im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht auf Gleichbehandlung von Fremden untereinander […] und im Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Art47 Abs2 GRC verletzt worden.