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 2019/14/0509

N/N (Afghan citizen), Federal Government
Policy area
Borders and Visa
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Highest Administrative Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
19/02/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:AT:VWGH:2020:RA2019140509.L00

Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Austria / Highest Administrative Court / Ra 2019/14/0509

    Key facts of the case:

    The applicant, an Afghan citizen, applied for international protection in 2015 in Austria. After negative decisions by the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, BFA) his case went through the instances, namely the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) and the Highest Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). His case was then again brought back before the Federal Administrative Court, where the case was assigned to a different judge than before. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal without conducting a further oral hearing. The applicant appealed against this decision by the Federal Administrative Court, mainly arguing that the Federal Administrative Court had deviated from the established case-law of the Highest Administrative Court, according to which the personal impression of the applicant was particularly relevant when assessing the circumstances of integration of the applicant and that a further oral hearing has to be held if the case is assigned to a different judge after an administrative court ruling had been overturned, and if facts changed - in particular the submission of new country reports.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The Highest Administrative Court had to decide, whether it was unlawful not to conduct a further hearing after the case was assigned to another judge at the Federal Administrative Court.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Highest Administrative Court set aside the contested decision on the grounds of unlawfulness due to a violation of procedural rules.

    The Federal Government shall reimburse the appellant for expenses in the amount of EUR 1,346.40 within two weeks, otherwise it will be executed.

     

     

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    By failing to repeat the hearing as required, the BVwG disregarded the obligation to hold a hearing. Within the scope of application of Art. 6 ECHR and - as given here - Art. 47 of the Charter, disregarding the obligation to hold a hearing leads to an annulment due to unlawfulness as a result of violation of procedural provisions, without it being necessary to examine the relevance of this procedural defect (VwGH 1.3.2018, Ra 2017/19/0410 with further references). This also applies in the case of a violation of the order in § 25 (7) VwGVG, according to which the hearing must be repeated if the composition of the Senate changes or the case is assigned to another judge (cf. the general remarks on § 25 (7) second sentence of the VwGVG, VwGH 26.4.2019, Ra 2018/02/0260, which were made, albeit with regard to administrative criminal proceedings - but there in the context of the examination whether the provision at issue here is also to be applied in such proceedings). [...] 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Durch die Unterlassung der gebotenen Wiederholung der Verhandlung hat das BVwG die bestehende Verhandlungspflicht missachtet. Eine solche Missachtung der Verhandlungspflicht führt im Anwendungsbereich des Art. 6 EMRK und des - wie hier gegeben - Art. 47 GRC zur Aufhebung wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften, ohne dass die Relevanz dieses Verfahrensmangels geprüft werden müsste (VwGH 1.3.2018, Ra 2017/19/0410, mwN). Dies gilt auch in jenen Fall, in dem gegen die Anordnung des § 25 Abs. 7 VwGVG, wonach die Verhandlung zu wiederholen ist, wenn sich die Zusammensetzung des Senates ändert oder die Rechtssache einem anderen Richter zugewiesen wurde, verstoßen wird (vgl. die, wenngleich in Bezug auf ein Verwaltungsstrafverfahren - jedoch dort im Rahmen der Prüfung, ob die hier gegenständliche Vorschrift auch in solchen Verfahren Anwendung zu finden hat - getätigten, allgemeinen Ausführungen zu § 25 Abs. 7 zweiter Satz VwGVG, VwGH 26.4.2019, Ra 2018/02/0260). [...] Das angefochtene Erkenntnis war daher gemäß § 42 Abs. 2 Z 3 lit. c VwGG aufzuheben, ohne dass auf das übrige Vorbringen in der Revision einzugehen war.