Austria / Constitutional Court / E3919/2023 / ECLI:AT:VFGH:2024:E3919.2023

Afghan national v Austria
Policy area
Asylum and migration
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
26/06/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:AT:VFGH:2024:E3919.2023
  • Austria / Constitutional Court / E3919/2023 / ECLI:AT:VFGH:2024:E3919.2023

    Key facts of the case:

    An Afghan national left Afghanistan alone in August 2021 and travelled to Austria as an unaccompanied minor, where he filed an application for international protection on 26 June 2022. He argued that his father had worked in the Afghan military for 16 years and had been forced to leave the country after the Taliban came to power. By decision of 2 October 2023, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum rejected his application for the granting of asylum status, granted the request for subsidiary protection status and issued a temporary residence permit for a period of one year. The applicant complained about the rejection of his application for asylum before the Federal Administrative Court. The Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded, without holding an oral hearing , on28 November 2023. The Federal Administrative Court essentially stated that the complainant was not exposed to any individual persecution or danger in Afghanistan, in particular due to his father's work for the Afghan army.

    The applicant complained before the Constitutional Court that the refusal of asylum status had interfered with his fundamental right to asylum (Art 18 of the EU Charter). The applicant further complained that the Federal Administrative Court had failed to hold an oral hearing, although this had been requested and would have been essential to clarify the facts of the case. He also brought forward that the Federal Administrative Court did not believe him without having seen him, although he was still a minor at the time of the decision

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The Constitutional Court was called to decide 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 held that the Federal Administrative Court should have held an oral hearing as it would have clarified the facts of the case. The Federal Administrative Court was therefore not allowed to assume that the facts of the case had been clarified with regard to the credibility of the flight claim merely by studying the files. The complainant's constitutionally guaranteed right to an oral hearing in accordance with Art 47 (2) of the EU Charter had therefore been violated.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    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 …. 

    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 Art 47(2) of the Charter …

    The complainant's constitutionally guaranteed 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)

    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 […].

    Der Beschwerdeführer ist somit durch das angefochtene Erkenntnis in seinem verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht gemäß Art47 Abs2 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union verletzt worden.