Federal Constitutional Court, Court Order of the First Chamber of the Second Senate, 25 March 2020, 2 BvR 113/20

Regarding the alleged violations of the right to have recourse to a court (Art. 19 par. 4 Grundgesetz) and the right to be treated equally (Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG), the Federal Constitutional Court finds that the applicant did not outline the reasons for the violations sufficiently.

Concerning the violation of the right to be heard (Art. 103 par. 1 Grundgesetz), the court noted that under that right courts are obliged to acknowledge and consider all information and evidence presented by the applicants on the one hand and to inform the applicants on all relevant facts on the other hand. Therefore, applicants have a right of access to all relevant documents. In asylum cases, this includes status reports on an applicant’s country of origin. In the instant case, the applicant’s attorney was given permission to see the report whereas a copy was denied. Thus, making use of the information in the report especially in the oral hearings was impossible. This violates the applicant’s right to be heard. However, the Federal Constitutional Court finds that the violation did not affect the outcome of the procedure.

Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court stated the courts violated the applicant’s right to be heard by dismissing the applicant’s motion for evidence as not having been submitted in due time in line with § 74 par. 2 Asylgesetz. A court has to take into account all information and evidence presented by the applicant. § 74 par. 2 Asylgesetz limits the time period in which an applicant may present information and evidence to one month. The aim of this limitation is to avoid delays of the proceedings as proceedings in asylum cases depend on the applicants cooperation and participation. Regarding this aim, the time limitation in § 74 par. 2 Asylgesetz only refers to information and evidence concerning personal experiences of the applicant as only these kinds of information can solely be provided by the applicant. Information and evidence i.e. on the overall situation in the country may also be obtained elsewhere and therefore do not fall under § 74 par. 2 Asylgesetz. That means they may be presented after a month. Yet the Constitution Court finds that even though there was a violation of the applicant’s right to be heard by dismissing his motion for evidence based on such non-individual facts, this violation did not affect the outcome of the court proceedings. The complaint was thus rejected.