Case summaries

The Immigration Service had rejected applications for residence permits based on family ties, because the Applicants had not been heard in person. Conducting an oral hearing with the Applicants was not mandatory for establishing the requirements for family reunification. The refusal by the Immigration Service to conduct the hearing had in practice lead to the rejection of the applications for residence permits. The Administrative Court considered that the conduct of the authorities had caused undue harm to the Applicants.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is also applicable to proceedings to issue a return decision and requires a hearing. With regard to an Applicant who is not represented by anyone legally qualified, such an obligation also exists in cases in which an application for an oral hearing was not expressly lodged. This applies in particular when considering questions concerning private and family life in Austria.

There has been a violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if there is a failure to hold a hearing at the Asylum Court, notwithstanding that the facts of the case are not sufficiently clear. Merely general statements without reference to the case in point do not represent sufficient grounds for the lack of credibility of the submission.

Failure to integrate into the country, which is typically the case, does not constitute grounds for protection. Behaviour a long time previously in relation to the entry is not significant when assessing security requirements. Aggressive behaviour in the Federal Support Centre does not alone represent a need for security which justifies detention (deportation detention). Despite removal from the Federal Support Centre owing to this behaviour, this must not lead to an asylum seeker losing his entitlement to basic services.

This case concerned the appropriate interpretation to be given to the determination of the Court of Justice in Case C-277/2012, M.M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in answer to the questions posed by the High Court of Ireland pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.

The Court of Justice answered in the negative the question posed that the duty to cooperate required the decision maker to supply the Applicant with a draft of any possible adverse decision for comment prior to its formal adoption.

However, the Court of Justice also considered the Irish system for protection decision making more broadly and concluded that it was unlawful not to allow for a further hearing of the Applicant in the course of examination of the subsidiary protection application – following the conclusion of a negative decision on an asylum claim.

The High Court held that the appropriate interpretation to be given to the judgment in this regard was that, in order for a hearing to be effective, it would at a minimum, involve a procedure whereby the Applicant was invited to comment on any adverse credibility findings made at the asylum stage; a completely fresh opportunity to revisit all matters bearing on the claim for subsidiary protection; and a completely fresh assessment of the Applicant's credibility in circumstances where the mere fact that the asylum decision maker had ruled adversely on this question would not in itself suffice or be directly relevant to this fresh credibility assessment.

The Court opined that the finding of the Court of Justice did not suggest that an oral hearing would be routinely required at subsidiary protection stage, but considered it unnecessary at that juncture to conclusively determine the issue.

The Court granted permission to the Applicants to seek judicial review of the negative decision made in a written appeal (rather than an oral appeal) in an application for refugee status made by a South African one-parent family. The decision to allow a written appeal was based on the status of South Africa as a ‘safe country,’ and the appeal decision was based on personal credibility and the absence of a nexus to Convention grounds. The Applicants failed in their argument that the absence of an oral hearing may render the appeal decision unlawful by reference to the right to an effective remedy as guaranteed by the Asylum Procedures Directive, because the Applicants had in fact availed of the appeal rather than challenge the fact that it was confined to a written appeal. Leave to seek judicial review was granted on the basis that an aspect of the claim which was disclosed after the first instance decision was not properly considered; that the decision maker made exaggerated credibility findings to the potential detriment of a subsequent subsidiary protection application; and erred in the consideration of country of origin information and evidence of the availability of internal protection.

When assessing the application for international protection the Ministry of Interior (MI) did not take into account the Applicant’s youth, lack of education and background. The MI did not conduct the procedure and pose questions in a manner that was suitable to the Applicant’s age and personality.

The country of origin information that the Applicant submitted only in his appeal against the decision should be accepted as this is generally available information that MI could have obtained on its own.

The Court granted permission to the Applicant to seek judicial review of the negative decision made in a written appeal (rather than an oral appeal) in an application for refugee status made by a South African national. The decision to allow a written appeal was based on the status of South Africa as a ‘safe country,’ but because the appeal decision was based on personal credibility, the absence of an oral hearing may have been unlawful by reference to the right to an effective remedy as guaranteed by the Asylum Procedures Directive.

The age of the child and the mental state of the Applicant as well as the ban on more detailed questioning on the reasons for fleeing in the initial police interview should have been taken into account to a greater extent when assessing the assertion of flight. The lack of discussion of these aspects represents a failure to investigate several decisive points, which made the decision by the Asylum Court arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional