Austria / Constitutional Court / E3411/2024
-
Austria / Constitutional Court / E3411/2024
Key facts of the case:
The applicant, a national of Mali, who was an unaccompanied child upon arrival in Austria and during his first interview (aged 17), applied for international protection (asylum and subsidiary protection) in January 2022. He claimed to belong to the Peulh ethnic group and to have fled his village after his parents were killed in an attack. The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum rejected his application, finding his account not credible due to alleged inconsistencies regarding his age, place of origin (inability to read maps), and the generalized nature of his statements. The Federal Administrative Court upheld the decision by the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum without holding a public hearing. The Federal Administrative Court deemed the facts sufficiently clarified by the evidence gathering of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum and followed the reasoning that the applicant's account lacked veracity. The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court, complaining that the Federal Administrative Court should have held a hearing to assess the credibility of his statement, as he had substantively contested the facts and was a child during interviews. This was, in the applicant’s view required by the right to a fair trial (Art 47(2) of the Charter), especially considering the vulnerability of minors in asylum proceedings.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The Constitutional Court was called to decide, whether the Federal Administrative Court's decision to dismiss the appeal without holding a public, oral hearing had violated the applicant's right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial under Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly in a case involving the credibility assessment of an asylum seeker who was a child at the time of the events and the first interviews.
Outcome of the case:
The Constitutional Court held that the Federal Administrative Court failed to adequately consider the applicant's minor age when assessing his credibility. Given the contradictions raised about his asylum claim (place of origin and escape), an oral hearing was mandatory for the Federal Administrative Court to form a personal, fair, and reliable impression of the applicant's credibility, as mere reliance on the files was insufficient for a fair trial. The Constitutional Court therefore set aside the decision of the Federal Administrative Court.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
The decision not to hold an oral hearing is – provided that administrative proceedings have already taken place in which the parties were given the opportunity to be heard – in any case in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in those cases where the facts appear to be clear from the files in connection with the complaint or where it is clear from the investigations that the allegations are contrary to the facts ....
However, refraining from an oral hearing when this is necessary to ensure that the decision of the court hearing the case meets the requirements of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for a fair trial constitutes a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union .... Such a violation of Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union exists for the following reasons: ... Against this background, it would have been necessary in the present case to hold an oral hearing to gain a personal impression of the complainant's credibility.
The contested decision violated the complainant’s constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
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 Art 47 Abs2 GRC dar […] Eine solche Verletzung in Art47 Abs2 GRC liegt aus folgenden Gründen vor: [...] Vor diesem Hintergrund wäre in der vorliegenden Konstellation die Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung geboten gewesen, um sich einen persönlichen Eindruck von der Glaubwürdigkeit des Beschwerdeführers zu verschaffen.
Der Beschwerdeführer ist durch das angefochtene Erkenntnis im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht gemäß Art47 Abs2 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union verletzt worden.