Article 41 - Right to good administration
Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Key facts of the case:
Migration Department refused to issue a temporary residence permit for the applicant and claimed that company, of which he is a shareholder, is fictitious. The Migration Department noted that the Company did not have actual premises for its activities, during investigation of Company’s activities no employee was working at the Company's registered office, although only one employee of the Company worked remotely under the concluded labour contract. There is also evidence that the applicant is engaged in activities in a foreign country as a participant of another company and, at the time of the Company's activity investigation, the applicant's spouse confirmed that the applicant has been away. Therefore, it can be stated that the Company was established solely for the purpose of third-country nationals, participants of the Company, formally would comply with the requirements of Article 45 of the Law on the legal status of Aliens (Issue of a Temporary Residence Permit to an Alien Who Engages, and Intends to Continue Engaging, in Lawful Activity). The applicant submitted complaint to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, however, his complaint was dismissed. The Court agreed with the conclusions of the Migration Department that applicant only wanted formally to comply with the requirements of the Law, but the company did not function in reality. Therefore, the applicant submitted appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that the contested decision was adopted by in the absence of all the procedures laid down by law, without giving the applicant an opportunity to provide explanations.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
If the Migration Department implemented the principle of good administration?
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint and left the ruling of Vilnius Regional Administrative Court unchanged
Although Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter - the Charter) is addressed to the institutions of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter - the Court of Justice) interpreting European Union law also states that following from a line of case-law developed by the Court of Justice observance of the right to a fair hearing is a fundamental principle of European Union law (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 March 2000 in the Case C-7/98 Krombach ECR I-1935, paragraph 42; judgement of 18 December 2008 in the Case C-349/07 Sopropé ECR I-10369, paragraph 36); in particular as regards the right to be heard in any procedure, which is one of the components of that fundamental principle (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 November 1983 in Case C-322/81 Nederlandsche Banden -Industrie-Michelin v Commission of the European Communities, ECR 3461, paragraph 7, judgment of 18 October 1989 in the Case C-374/87 Orkem v Commission of the European Communities, ECR 3283, paragraph 32), it should be noted that it is now affirmed not only in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, which ensure respect of both the rights of the defence and the right to fair legal process in all judicial proceedings, but also in Article 41 thereof, which guarantees the right to good administration The right to be heard guarantees every person the opportunity to make known his views effectively during an administrative procedure and before the adoption of any decision liable to affect his interests adversely (see, for example, judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 June 2005, in the case C‑287/02 Spain v Commission of the European Communities, ECR I-5093, paragraph 37, and the case cited therein, Sopropé, paragraph 37, judgment of 1 October 2009 in the case C‑141/08 P Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council of the European Union, ECR 9147, paragraph 83, Judgment of 21 December 2011 in the case C‑27/09 P France v People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, ECR 13427, paragraphs 64 and 65); that right also requires the authorities to pay due attention to the observations thus submitted by the person concerned, examining carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case and giving a detailed statement of reasons for their decision (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 November 1991 Case C 269/90 Technische Universität München, paragraph 14, and the case cited therein, Sopropé, paragraph 50), since the obligation to state reasons for a decision which are sufficiently specific and concrete to allow the person to understand why his application is being rejected is thus a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence. (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2012 in the Case C-277/11 M v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General, paras. 81-82, 87-88).
Nors Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos (toliau – ir Chartija) 41 straipsnis yra adresuotas Europos Sąjungos institucijoms, aiškindamas Europos Sąjungos teisę Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas (toliau – ir Teisingumo Teismas) yra, be kita ko, nurodęs, kad pagal nusistovėjusią Teisingumo Teismo praktiką teisės į gynybą paisymo principas yra bendrasis Europos Sąjungos teisės principas (žr., pvz., Teisingumo Teismo 2000 m. kovo 28 d. sprendimą byloje Krombach, C‑7/98, Rink. p. I‑1935, 42 punktą, 2008 m. gruodžio 18 d. sprendimą byloje Sopropé, C‑349/07, Rink. p. I‑10369, 36 punktą); konkrečiau kalbant apie teisę būti išklausytam per bet kokią procedūrą, kuri yra viena iš minėto pagrindinio principo sudedamųjų dalių (žr., pvz., Teisingumo Teismo 1983 m. lapkričio 9 d. sprendimą byloje Nederlandsche Banden -Industrie-Michelin prieš Europos Bendrijų Komisiją, C-322/81, Rink. p. 3461, 7 punktą, 1989 m. spalio 18 d. sprendimą byloje Orkem prieš Europos Bendrijų Komisiją, C-374/87, Rink. p. 3283, 32 punktą), pažymėtina, kad šiuo metu ji yra įtvirtinta ne tik Chartijos 47 ir 48 straipsniuose, pagal kuriuos užtikrinamas teisės į gynybą ir teisės į teisingą kiekvieno teismo procesą paisymas, bet ir jos 41 straipsnyje, pagal kurį užtikrinama teisė į gerą administravimą; teisė būti išklausytam bet kuriam asmeniui užtikrina galimybę vykstant administracinei procedūrai iki sprendimo, galinčio neigiamai paveikti jo interesus, priėmimo tinkamai pareikšti savo nuomonę (žr., pvz., Teisingumo Teismo 2005 m. birželio 9 d. sprendimą byloje Ispanija prieš Europos Bendrijų Komisiją, C‑287/02, Rink. p. I‑5093, 37 punktą ir jame nurodytą teismo praktiką, minėtą sprendimą byloje Sopropé, 37 punktą, 2009 m. spalio 1 d. sprendimą byloje Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware prieš Europos Sąjungos Tarybą, C‑141/08 P, Rink. p. I‑9147, 83 punktą, 2011 m. gruodžio 21 d. sprendimą byloje Prancūzija prieš People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, Rink. p. I‑13427, 64 ir 65 punktus); minėta teisė taip pat reiškia, kad administracija, rūpestingai ir nešališkai išnagrinėjusi visą aptariamam atvejui reikšmingą informaciją ir nurodžiusi išsamius sprendimo motyvus, turi atidžiai susipažinti su suinteresuotojo asmens pateiktomis pastabomis (žr., pvz., Teisingumo Teismo 1991 m. lapkričio 21 d. sprendimą byloje Technische Universität München, C‑269/90, Rink. p. I‑5469, 14 punktą ir minėtą sprendimą byloje Sopropé, 50 punktą), nes pareiga nurodyti pakankamai išsamius ir konkrečius sprendimo motyvus, kad suinteresuotasis asmuo galėtų suprasti, kodėl jo prašymas buvo atmestas, kildintina iš teisės į gynybą paisymo principo (žr., pvz., Teisingumo Teismo 2012 m. lapkričio 22 d. sprendimą byloje M prieš Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Airiją, Attorney General, C-277/11, 81–82, 87–88 punktus).
