Source: https://fra.europa.eu/en/caselaw-reference/austria-constitutional-court-e21082015
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 20:16:53
Document Index: 184525937

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 21', 'Art144', 'Art47', '§21', 'Art47', 'Art47', 'Art47', 'Art47', 'Art47', 'Art144', 'Art47', '§21', 'Art47', 'Art47', 'Art47', 'Art47']

Austria / Constitutional Court / E2108/2015 | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Austria / Constitutional Court / E2108/2015
Somali citizen v Federal state of Austria
The appellant, a Somali citizen, filed an application for international protection on 25 May 2014. After the first inquiry, which took place on the same day, the appellant was interrogated by the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, BFA) on 17 February 2015. By decision of 3 April 2015, the BFA denied the appellant entitlement to asylum based on claims that he failed to put forward relevant reasons which underpinned the fact that he was persecuted. However, the BFA granted him subsidiary protection. The BFA argued that the appellant mentioned in his first inquiry that he only left Somalia because of hoping to find a better life (including work), whereas now he is claiming to be persecuted by Al-Shabbab. Thereupon, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Federal Administrative Court, which was rejected on 4 September 2015 without conducting a public hearing. The Court argued that the BFA conducted a proper and flawless judical inquiry and that the circumstances of the case, which were brought forwad, are not of relevance regarding asylum. Thereupon, based on Article 144 B-VG, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Constitional Court claiming that his constitutionally protected rights, especially the right to a fair trial with a public hearing according to Article 47 para 2 CFR, have been violated by the decision of the Federal Administrative Court. The Constitutional Court decided on 10 June 2016 that the complaint is founded. According to the Constitutional Court, the Federal Administrative Court violated the right to fair trial by not conducting a public hearing.
As for the presented case, the relevant legal norms are: § 3 Asylum Act 2005 (Asylgesetz 2005, AsylG 2005) , § 21 (7) Federal office for immigration and asylum procedures (BFA-Verfahrensgesetz, BFA-VG) and Article 47 para 2 CFR.
The key legal question is about the violation of the right to fair trial by not conducting a public hearing and rejecting the application for asylum of a Somali citizen. Moreover, it is about inssufficent clarification of the circumstances of the case regarding the lack of credibility in relation to flight reasons. Both the not conducting of a public hearing even when proscribed and inssufficient clarification of the circumstances of the case consitutute a violation of the right to fair trial.
The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to fair trial by not conducting a public hearing. The Constitutional Court then set aside the Federal Administrative Court’s decision.
I. The appellant has been violated by the contested verdict in his constitutionally guaranteed right to have a public hearing according to Article 47 para 2 Fundamental Rights Charter of the European Union.
I. 4. The present complaint, which is based on Art144 B-VG, is directed against that decision, ,, , in which the violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, in particular the right to conducting a public hearing according to Art47 para 2 Fundamental Rights Charter of the European Union (CFR) is being claimed and the chargeable repeal of the contested decision is being requested.
II. 2. §21 (7) BFA-VG regulates the elimination of public hearings for proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court,. Waiving a public hearing is only allowed – as long as administrative proceedings which granted party hearing have taken place beforehand– at least in those cases in accordance with Art47 para 2 CFR, where the circumstances of the case appear to be sufficiently clarified in the context of the complaint, or where the investigatons clearly show that the plea is contrary to the facts (cf. VfSlg 19.632/2012).
Yet, waiving a necessary public hearing constitutes a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right according to Art47 para 2 CFR (VfGH 13.3.2013, U1175/12 ua.; 26.6.2013, U1257/2012; 22.9.2014, U2529/2013).
II. 3. Such a violation of Art47 para 2 CFR exists because of the following reason:
The decision of the Federal Administrative Court is based on key findings of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum concerning the credibility of the flight argument in relation to the first inquiry, which the appellant evidently objected to in further interrogations (cf. I. 1.). Due to the mere study of files, the Federal Administrative Court was not entitled to decide s that the circumstances of the case were clarified with respect to the identified lack of credibility. In this regard, the requirements for waiving a public hearing are not existent.
1. The appellant has been violated by the contested verdict in his constitutionally guaranteed right to having a public hearing according to Art47 para 2 CFR.
I. Der Beschwerdeführer ist durch das angefochtene Erkenntnis im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Art47 Abs2 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union verletzt worden.
I. 4. Gegen diese Entscheidung richtet sich die vorliegende, auf Art144 B-VG gestützte Beschwerde, in der die Verletzung von verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Rechten insbesondere auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung nach Art47 Abs2 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (GRC) behauptet und die kostenpflichtige Aufhebung der angefochtenen Entscheidung beantragt wird.
II. 2. Für das Verfahren vor dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht regelt §21 Abs7 BFA-VG den Entfall der mündlichen Verhandlung. Das Absehen von einer mündlichen Verhandlung steht – sofern zuvor bereits ein Verwaltungsverfahren stattgefunden hat, in dessen Rahmen Parteiengehör gewährt wurde – jedenfalls in jenen Fällen im Einklang mit Art47 Abs2 GRC, in denen der Sachverhalt aus der Aktenlage in Verbindung mit der Beschwerde geklärt erscheint oder sich aus den Ermittlungen zweifelsfrei ergibt, dass das Vorbringen tatsachenwidrig ist (vgl. VfSlg 19.632/2012).
Das Absehen von einer gebotenen mündlichen Verhandlung stellt hingegen eine Verletzung im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht nach Art47 Abs2 GRC dar (VfGH 13.3.2013, U1175/12 ua.; 26.6.2013, U1257/2012; 22.9.2014, U2529/2013).
II. 3. Eine solche Verletzung in Art47 Abs2 GRC liegt aus folgendem Grund vor:
3.1. Die Entscheidung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichtes beruht auf wesentlichen Feststellungen des Bundesamtes für Fremdenwesen und Asyl betreffend die Glaubhaftigkeit des Fluchtvorbringens im Zusammenhang mit der Ersteinvernahme, denen der Beschwerdeführer bei seinen weiteren Einvernahmen offenkundig widersprochen hat (vgl. Pkt. I. 1.). Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht durfte daher jedenfalls nicht durch bloßes Aktenstudium davon ausgehen, dass der Sachverhalt hinsichtlich der festgestellten mangelnden Glaubhaftmachung geklärt ist. Insoweit lagen die Voraussetzungen für das Unterbleiben einer mündlichen Verhandlung nicht vor.
1. Der Beschwerdeführer ist durch das angefochtene Erkenntnis im verfassungsgesetzlich gewährleisteten Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Art47 Abs2 GRC verletzt worden.
a) By applying the CFR to the present case, the Constitutional Court drew a direct link between the Charter itself and a constitutionally protected right, namely the right to a public hearing.
b) The contribution of the decision described to the overall role of the Charter in the national legal system: By applying the CFR, the Constitutional Court contributes to manifesting the CFR in national jurisprudence. While the violation of the right to fair trial (including the right to public hearing) is mostly tied to Article 6 ECHR, the application of the CFR creates some awareness in this regard. In this case, the Court only referred to the CFR, as a violation of the CFR was claimed by the appellant. Yet, usually the Court mentions both legal bases, the ECHR and the CFR. So there is currently no obvious trend visible of less and less mentioning of the ECHR where the CFR is referred to.