ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
You are here
Home ›Austria – Federal Administrative Court, 24. August 2015, W149 1433213-1/29E
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 2
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 3
Council of Europe Instruments > ECHR (Sixth Protocol)
Council of Europe Instruments > ECHR (Thirteenth Protocol)
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 8
European Union Law > EN - Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council > Article 20
Austria - Asylgesetz (Asylum Act) 2005 - § 8
Austria - Asylgesetz (Asylum Act) 2005 - § 75 (20)
Austria - Asylgesetz (Asylum Act) 2005 - § 10 (1)
Austria - Asylgesetz (Asylum Act) 2005 - § 2 (1) Section 13
Austria - Asylgesetz (Asylum Act) 2005 - § 75 (19)
Austria – BVwGG (Federal administrative court Act Amendment of administrative litigation) - § 6
Austria – VwGVG (Federal Act on Procedures at Administrative Courts) - § 17
Austria- B-VG (Federal Constitutional Law) – Art. 130 (1) Section 1
Austria – BFA-VG (Federal Act on the general rules for procedures at the federal office for immigration and asylum) -§ 49 (9)
Austria – AVG (General Administrative Procedures Act) - § 13a
Austria – AsylG 2005 (Federal Act concerning the Granting of Asylum) - § 75 (1) sentence 1
Austria – AsylG 2005 (Federal Act concerning the Granting of Asylum) - § 22 (2)
Austria – AsylG 2005 (Federal Act concerning the Granting of Asylum) - § 11 (1)
Austria– VwGG (Supreme Administrative Court Act) - §25a
Austria- B-VG (Federal Constitutional Law) – 133 (4)
Austria – VwGVG (Federal Act on Procedures at Administrative Courts) - § 24 (1)
Austria – VwGVG (Federal Act on Procedures at Administrative Courts) - § 24 (3)


If an appellant provides substantiated reasons that call into question the consideration of evidence in the administrative proceedings, the facts cannot be regarded as “well established on basis of the records in combination with the complaint”. Thus, an oral hearing has to be held. The same applies if there is a necessity to consider up-to-date country of origin information as well as an up-to-date medical report due to the long duration of the judicial proceedings.
In the opinion of the court, the absence of a legal representative in the oral hearing, in spite of an explicit request by the appellant, does not constitute a grave violation of procedural rules. The relevant provisions does not provide for any legal consequences for such failure to act. However, this interpretation is not mandatory due to the lack of explicitly regulated legal consequences and requires further clarification by the Supreme Administrative Court.
The appellant lodged an application for international protection with the competent border authority at the airport in Vienna in 2011.
During the following administrative procedures the applicant was repeatedly questioned in writing and produced several pieces of evidence regarding his state of health, the situation in Somalia as well as his knowledge of German. Furthermore, he was invited on several occasions to comment on the country of origin information regarding Somalia, which formed the basis of the later decision of the Federal Office of Asylum, as well as on specific issues, like the accessibility of treatment for diabetes mellitus in Somalia.
The Federal Office of Asylum rejected his application with regard to granting refugee as well as subsidiary protection status and ordered his expulsion to Somalia.
The applicant appealed this decision. He claimed that the consideration of evidence by the Federal Office was incorrect and inadequate. In the oral hearing he also claimed, that his assigned legal adviser neither advised him on how to formulate his complaint nor did he accompany him to the oral hearing.
Firstly, the Federal Administrative Court held that in the present case an oral hearing could not be waived according to § 21 (7) of the Federal Act on the general rules for procedures at the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum, solely because the appellant provided substantiated reasons that call into question the consideration of evidence in the administrative proceedings. Therefore the facts could not be regarded as “well established on basis of the records in combination with the complaint”. The same applies if there is a necessity to consider up-to-date country of origin information as well as an up-to-date medical report due to the long duration of the judicial proceedings.
Furthermore, the initial consideration of some issues (e.g. internal protection alternative, ability of the state to protect) requires that the right to be heard is granted. Finally, the oral hearing may not be replaced by giving the applicant the possibility to comment in writing on country of origin information during the complaint procedure.
Concerning the submission of the appellant which underlined that the legal representative was absent, the Court did regard it as credible, in spite of an explicit request by the appellant. However, in the opinion of the court this did not constitute a grave violation of procedural rules. On the one hand, not accompanying the appellant during the judicial proceedings could not be regarded as a violation of the procedural rules by the opposing administrative authority. On the other hand, § 52 (2) of the Federal Act on the general rules for procedures at the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum does not prescribe any legal consequences for such failure to act, in particular not with regards to oral hearings or judicial proceedings as such. In this context, the only legal consequence that is provided for can be found in § 48(9) of said law which lays down that in case of a repeated and insistent breach of duties by a single legal entity the federal minister can annul its authorisation. Moreover, such legal consequence can also not be derived from European Union law since the national provision goes beyond what is required by Art. 20 (1) of Directive 2013/32/EU.
For the rest, the court found that on the basis of the facts that have been established in the judicial proceedings there was no well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of Art. 1 A of the 1951 Refugee Convention. In the same vein, there was also no real risk of a violation of Art. 2 ECHR or Art. 3 ECHR or Protocol No. 6 or Protocol No. 13 to the Convention or a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict that would warrant the granting of subsidiary protection. Therefore, the appeal was unfounded in this regard.
The Federal Administrative Court based these findings on a detailed analysis of the submission of the appellant in the oral hearing and the country of origin information with regard to the general situation in Somalia, the security and human rights situation, (ethnical) minority and clan structures, freedom of movement, internally displaced persons, basic supply and economy, medical care and the possibility of return as well as the medical reports and the further evidence presented.
Additionally, the Court held that the return of the appellant would not be permanently inadmissible on the basis of Art. 8 ECHR since he did not have a family life in Austria and any further interference with his right to private life would be justified by a weighing of the interests concerned in accordance with Art 8(2) ECHR. Therefore, the decision on the lawfulness of a return decision was referred back to the Foreign Office for Asylum.
Finally, the court declared that an ordinary appeal against its decision would be admissible in accordance with Art. 133 (4) of the Federal Constitutional Law. This is due to the fact that the interpretation of the newly adopted § 52 (2) of the Federal Act on the general rules for procedures at the federal office for immigration and asylum with regard to the legal consequences of the unfounded absence of a legal representative in the oral hearing of the Federal Administrative Court, in spite of an explicit request by the appellant, in proceedings concerning international protection was still unclear. Due to the lack of explicitly specified legal consequences it could not be excluded that such breach could, contrary to the view of the deciding chamber, have legal implications for the proceedings. Since this question involved a legal issue of fundamental importance for all proceedings concerning international protection further clarification from the Supreme Administrative Court was needed.
The appeal was dismissed as unfounded with regards to the non-recognition as a refugee and as a subsidiary protection beneficiary.
Concerning the lawfulness of a return decision the case was referred back to the Federal Office of Asylum.
An ordinary appeal against the decision was declared as admissible.
This case summary was written by Ann-Christin Bölter, LLM student in Immigration Law at Queen Mary University, London.
The summary was proof read by Ana-Maria Bucataru, an LLM student in Immigration Law at Queen Mary University, London.
Foreign Office (3.2014b): Somalia – Foreign Policy (March 2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign Office (3.2014c): Somalia – Home Affairs (March 2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign Office (03.2014a): Somalia – Economy (March 2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clans in Somalia – Report regarding the lecture of Dr. Koakim GUNDEL at the COI-Workshop in Vienna on the 15.05.2009 (revised edition, December 2009) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amnesty International - No place like home, Returns and relocations of Somalia's displaced (23.10.2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Associated Press (17.04.2013): As Islamic radicals retreat, young Somalis elope | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Query Response of the Country of Origin Information Unit of the Federal Office for Asylum: Mudulood, Mobilen/Mobleen and Subclans, Mogadischu of 17.01.2013 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Query Response of the Country of Origin Information Unit of the Federal Office for Asylum: Diabetes, Medication, Mogadishu of 20.09.2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Federal Agency of Migration and Refugees (6.10.2014): Briefing Notes of 06.10.2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bertelsmann Foundation: BTI 2014, Somalia Country Report (2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Danish Immigration Service - Report on the fact finding mission on security and protection issues in Mogadishu and South-Central Somalia (04/2014) Joint Report from Danish Immigration Service's and the Norwegian Landinfo's fact-finding-mission to Nairobi, Kenya and Mogadishu, Somalia - 17 to 28.10.2012, Update on security and protection in Mogadishu and South- Central Somalia (November 2013) and Update (March 2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‘Deutsche Welle’: Somalia under state of emergency (22.06.2009) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
European Asylum Support Office - Country of Origin Information Report (South and Central Somalia, Country Overview) (August 2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ecoi.net-thematic dossier: Al-Shabaab: Timeline of events | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Human Rights Watch (21.01.2014): World Report 2014 - Somalia Human Rights Watch (19.04.2010): Harsh War, Harsh Peace – Abuses by al-Sahaab, the Transitional Federal Government, and AMISOM in Somalia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada - Somalie: Information sur Al-Shabaab, y compris les zones qu'il contrôle, le recrutement et les groupes affiliés (2012 - novembre 201) (26.11.2013) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integrated Regional Information Network, Analysis: The state of state-building in Somalia (21.10.2014): | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IRIN - Integrated Regional Information Networks (Presseagentur): Security Downturn in Mogadishu (09.04.2014) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Landinfo (Norway)/Danish Immigration Service (Denmark): Security and protection in Mogadishu and South-Central Somalia (May 2013) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Landinfo (Norway)/Danish Immigration Service (Denmark) Update on security and protection issues in Mogadishu and South-Central Somalia (March 2014)
|
Austria – Constitutional Court, 17 March 2005, G 78/04
Austria - VwGH, 16 Februar 2000, 99/01/0097
ECtHR - Konstantinov v The Netherlands, Application No. 50435/99
ECtHR - Marckx v Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A No. 31
ECtHR - Boultif v Switzerland, Application No. 54273/00
Austria - VwGH, 18 Februar 1999, 98/20/0468
Austria - VwGH, 16 Juni 1994, 94/19/0183
Austria - VwGH, 28 September 2009, 2008/19/1027
Austria - VwGH, 3 Juli 2003, 2000/20/0071
Austria - VwGH, 31 Januar 2002, 99/20/04978
Austrian - VwGH, 26 Juni 2007, 2007/01/0479
Austria - VwGH, 31 Mai 2011, 200/20/0496
Austria - VwGH, 20 Oktober 1999, 99/01/0197
Austria - VwGH, 15 März 2001, 99/20/0128
Austria - VwGH, 9 September 1993, 93/01/0284
Austria - VwGH, 9 März 1999, 98/01/0318
Austria - VwGH, 18 April 1996, 95/20/0239
ECtHR - Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], Application No. 60654/00
VwGH 26 Februar 2002, 99/20/0509
VwGH 25 Januar 2001, 2001/20/0011
VwGH 21 Dezember 2000, 2000/01/0131
VwGH, 19 Oktober 2000, Zl. 98/20/0233
VwGH 27 Juni 1995, 94/20/0836
VwGH 23 Juli 1999, 99/20/0208
VwGH 21 September 2000, 99/20/0373
VwGH 12 September 2002, 99/20/0505
Austria - VwGH, 9 April 1997, 95/01/0555
VwGH 17 September 2003, 2001/20/0177
VwGH 20 September 2004, 2001/20/0430
ECtHR - Omoregie and others v Norway, Application No. 265/07
Austria - VfGH, 20 June 2012, 1986-1990/11-17
Austria - VwGH, 22 März 2003, 99/01/0256
Austria - VwGH, 25 Januar 2003, 2001/20/0011
ECtHR - Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81
Austria - Administrative Court, 28 March 1995, 95/19/0041
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 16 January 2001, Zl. 2000/18/0251
Austria – Constitutional Court, 29 September 2007, B328/07
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 26 June 1997, Zl. 95/21/0294
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 25 January 2001, Zl. 2000/20/0438
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 30 March 2001, Zl. 97/21/0560
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 21 August 2001, Zl. 2000/01/0443
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 22 August 2006, Zl. 2005/01/0728
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 14 October 1998, Zl. 98/01/0122
Austria – Constitutional Court, 18 March 1980, B 343/79
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 20 June 2002, Zl. 2002/18/0028
Austria – Constitutional Court, 22 February 1999, B940/98
Austria – Constitutional Court, 25 November 2002, B156/02
Austria – Constitutional Court, 12 December 1985, G225/85 u.a.
Austria – Constitutional Court, 29 September 1987, G138/87 u.a
Austria – Constitutional Court, 27 June 1996, B1838/94 - B1668/96 - B2243/96
Austria – Constitutional Court, 22 February 1999, B 940/98
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 17 December 2003, 2000/20/0208
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 27 February 2001, Zl. 98/21/0427
ECtHR - Adam v Germany, Application No. 43359/98
ECtHR - Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no 1638/03
ECtHR - Moustaquim v. Belgium, Application No. 12313/86
Austria - Administrative Court (VwGH), 16 July 2003, 2003/01/0059
Austria - Administrative Court (VwGH), 31 March 2005, 2002/20/0582
Austria - Administrative Court (VwGH) 19 February 2004, 99/20/0573
Austria - VwGH 22 December 1999, Zl. 99/01/0334
Austria - VwGH, 8 June 2000, Zl. 99/20/0203
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 28 May 2014, Ra 2014/20/0017 and 0018
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 24 February 2015, Ra 2014/19/0114-11
ECtHR - Mitchell v United Kingdom, App No 40447/98, 24 November 1998
Yilmaz Yildiz v. Turkey, 31 October 2002, No. 37.295/97
ECtHR - Sarumi v. UK, 26 January 1999, No. 43.279/98
ECtHR - Sheabashov v. Lithuania, Judgement of 22 May 1999, No. 50065/99
ECtHR - Cherif and others v. Italy, 07 April 2009, No. 1860/07
Austria – Supreme Administrative Court, 16 December 2014, Ra 2014/19/0101