Austria – Constitutional Court, Decision dated 23 September 2016, E 1200/2016-12

The applicant is a 58-year-old man from Iran. He had travelled to Italy with a visa for the Schengen area before moving on to Austria, where he applied for international protection in October 2015. In December 2015 the Italian authorities accepted the request to take back the applicant under the Dublin regulation.

The applicant suffers from Parkinson’s disease, depression and arterial hypertension. Additional to that, he received a stent for his coronary vessels. Because of his state of health, the Austrian authorities asked their Italian counterparts for an individual guarantee confirming the supervision of the applicant before the return and enclosed a list of medicine, the applicant needed.

In their answer, the Italian authorities did not give an individual guarantee, but only attached a general circular letter of the Italian Interior Minister which included a list of accommodations that were known to treat vulnerable persons consistent with human rights. The Austrian asylum authorities (“Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl“) thereupon rejected the application for international protection, declaring Italy as the competent country to review the asylum application and ordering the return of the applicant to Italy.

The Austrian Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complaint of the applicant against this decision, stating that he would not have to fear a human rights violation when returned to Italy. The court justified its decision by finding that there is no real risk of a violation of Art. 3 ECHR for asylum seekers in Italy. Dublin returnees have access to the Italian asylum system, legal protection, accommodation and utility services. The Italian asylum systems does not contain any systemic deficiencies. Additionally, the Court stated that the applicant is not a vulnerable person because he is a “young man travelling alone without suffering from any serious diseases”. The guarantee given by the Italian authorities was considered to be sufficient. In its reasoning, the Federal Administrative Court referred to the Tarakhel decision of the ECtHR which finds that the general situation of asylum seekers in Italy is sufficient. Lastly, the Court states that also Art. 8 ECHR is not breached, despite the fact that the applicant entered Austria with his life partner who was granted asylum there.