Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Austria / Highest Administrative Court / Ra 2018/20/0001

Asylum seeker facing removal to Italy, Administrative Court
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Highest Administrative Court
Typ
Decision
Decision date
23/01/2018

Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union

Title I: Dignity

Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Austria / Highest Administrative Court / Ra 2018/20/0001

    Key facts of the case

    The judgement of the Highest Administrative Court does not provide much information on the original case. However, the case was about a women with two children who faced removal to Italy based on the Dublin III regulation. The applicant challenged the decision of the Administrative Court as it did not deal in detail with her vulnerability (she has two children and was pregnant at this point of time). In the understanding of the applicant, the statements of the Administrative Court on Italy did not give a coherent picture on the reception conditions.The presumption of safety according to § 5 Asyulm Act was challenged. The applicant brought forward that the second instance court did not in detail assess the reception conditions in Italy in detail. The Highest Adminstrative Court states that Art. 4 CFR and Art. ECHR have to be taken into account.

    Key legal question raised by the Court

    Did the Administrative Court sufficiently check the reception conditions in Italy against the background of Art. 4 CFR and Art. 3 ECHR? Did the applicant provide sufficient reasons to believe that she faces a real risk amounting to inhumane or degrading treatment according to Art. 4 CFR?

    Outcome of the case

    Based on information provided by Italian authorities,the Highest Administrative Court found that the Adminsitrative Court checked the situation in Italy, based on information provided by Italian authorities, and came to the conclusion that adequate housing and care are provided for the applicant. The applicant did not provide any further hints in her revision that she would face real risk when brought to Italy – she simply referred to the number of accommodation places. Therefore, the revision was rejected by the Highest Administrative Court

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    According to the settled case-law of the Administrative Court, the provisions of the ECHR and the GRC, in particular Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 GRC, must be taken into account in decisions under § 5 of the Asylum Act 2005 and in the event of imminent infringement must invoke the sovereignty clause of the Dublin system. Furthermore, it was stated in the case law that the "presumption of safety" of § 5 (3) Asylum Act 2005 can be refuted. The question of whether a state can be considered "safe" is primarily a question of fact that cannot be resolved by the Administrative Court. The assessment of whether the deficiencies identified in the target state refute the presumption of safety and preclude transfer of the asylum seeker under consideration of the ECHR and the GRC is - under the conditions of Art. 133 para. 4 B-VG - a revisable legal question (cf. about VwGH 20.10.2016, Ra 2016/20/0221, mwN).

    In its findings of 20 June 2017, Ra 2016/01/0153, the Administrative Court dealt in detail with the provision of § 5 (3) AsylG 2005 and the relevant EU law background - in particular with the principle of mutual trust between the countries applying the Dublin III Regulation enshrined in "presumption of safety" of § 5 para 3 AsylG 2005. In accordance with § 43 (2) second sentence of the VwGG, reference is made in this regard to the reasons for the present finding. It should be emphasized in the given context that therefore the safety presumption of § 5 Abs. 3 AsylG 2005 may only be refuted by a serious general change of the legal and factual situation in the member state that is comparable to the high threshold of the Art. 3 ECHR and / or. 4 GRC (Rn 35 and 44 of the cited decision VwGH 6/20/2017, Ra 2016/01/0153; see adjoining Court decsions by the VwGH 11.14.2017, Ra 2017/20/0108; 05.12.2017, Ra 2017 / 20/0431).

    However, in the present case, the appellant – referring to the number of accommodation places only – does not bring forward concrete indications that there is still a real risk for her and that a transfer to Italy would constitute a violation of Art. 3 ECHR or Art. 4 CFR.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes sind bei Entscheidungen nach § 5 AsylG 2005 auch die Bestimmungen der EMRK und der GRC, insbesondere Art. 3 EMRK und Art. 4 GRC, zu berücksichtigen und es ist bei einer drohenden Verletzung derselben das im "Dublin-System" vorgesehene Selbsteintrittsrecht auszuüben. Weiters wurde in der Judikatur festgehalten, dass die "Sicherheitsvermutung" des § 5 Abs. 3 AsylG 2005 widerlegbar ist. Dabei ist die Frage, ob ein Staat als "sicher" angesehen werden kann, vorrangig eine Tatsachenfrage, die nicht vom Verwaltungsgerichtshof zu lösen ist. Die Beurteilung, ob die festgestellten Mängel im Zielstaat die Sicherheitsvermutung widerlegen und einer Überstellung des Asylwerbers unter Bedachtnahme auf die EMRK und die GRC entgegenstehen, ist hingegen eine - unter den Voraussetzungen des Art. 133 Abs. 4 B-VG - revisible Rechtsfrage (vgl. etwa VwGH 20.10.2016, Ra 2016/20/0221, mwN).

    Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat sich in seinem Erkenntnis vom 20. Juni 2017, Ra 2016/01/0153, ausführlich mit der Bestimmung des § 5 Abs. 3 AsylG 2005 und dem diesbezüglichen unionsrechtlichen Hintergrund - insbesondere dem sich in der "Sicherheitsvermutung" des § 5 Abs. 3 AsylG 2005 wiederfindenden Prinzip des gegenseitigen Vertrauens zwischen den die Dublin III-Verordnung anwendenden Staaten - auseinandergesetzt. Gemäß § 43 Abs. 2 zweiter Satz VwGG wird insoweit auf die Entscheidungsgründe dieses Erkenntnisses verwiesen. Hervorzuheben ist im gegebenen Zusammenhang, dass demnach die Sicherheitsvermutung des § 5 Abs. 3 AsylG 2005 nur durch eine schwerwiegende, etwa die hohe Schwelle des Art. 3 EMRK bzw. Art. 4 GRC übersteigende allgemeine Änderung der Rechts- und Sachlage im zuständigen Mitgliedstaat widerlegt werden kann (Rn. 35 und 44 des zitierten Erkenntnisses VwGH 20.6.2017, Ra 2016/01/0153; vgl. aus der daran anschließenden Rechtsprechung etwa VwGH 14.11.2017, Ra 2017/20/0108; 5.12.2017, Ra 2017/20/0431).

    Dass es aber im vorliegenden Fall konkrete Hinweise dafür gäbe, es bestehe dennoch ein gerade die Revisionswerberin betreffendes reales Risiko, im Fall ihrer Überstellung nach Italien werde es zu einer Verletzung des Art. 3 EMRK bzw. Art. 4 GRC kommen, legt die Revision, die sich lediglich auf die Zahl der Unterbringungsplätze bezieht, nicht dar.