Case summaries

In some cases of severe illness Art. 3 ECHR precludes a deportation even though a treatment in the state of origin is possible. If the appellant cannot bear the costs of the treatment or the necessary concomitant medication the renewed increase of the illness and therefore a real life-threatening risk is probable which precludes the deportation of the applicant. 

If an appellant provides substantiated reasons that call into question the consideration of evidence in the administrative proceedings, the facts cannot be regarded as “well established on basis of the records in combination with the complaint”. Thus, an oral hearing has to be held. The same applies if there is a necessity to consider up-to-date country of origin information as well as an up-to-date medical report due to the long duration of the judicial proceedings.

In the opinion of the court, the absence of a legal representative in the oral hearing, in spite of an explicit request by the appellant, does not constitute a grave violation of procedural rules. The relevant provisions does not provide for any legal consequences for such failure to act. However, this interpretation is not mandatory due to the lack of explicitly regulated legal consequences and requires further clarification by the Supreme Administrative Court. 

According to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court an oral hearing can only be waived if the complaint does not claim any facts relevant to the assessment which are in contradiction or go beyond the result of the administrative investigation procedures.

On the contrary, it constitutes a substantiated denial of the consideration of evidence by the relevant authority if a complaint questions the credibility of different sources which formed the basis of such consideration. The lack of an oral proceeding in such cases leads to a violation of the obligation to hold a trial.

With regards to a possible exclusion from asylum its severe consequences for the individual do not only require that the exclusion clauses of the 1951 Refugee Convention are interpreted narrowly but also that the facts are sufficiently established in order to determine which conduct the exclusion is based on and to weigh the reprehensibility of the offense against the need of protection of the applicant.

Considerations of the competent authority, which are limited to the assumption that the individual in question has participated in hostilities and has caused the death of opposing soldiers and civilians without further clarifying when,  on which occasion and under which circumstances such participation has taken place, do not meet the requirements for determining whether the criteria for exclusion are fulfilled.  

An application for international protection lodged by an Afghan who illegally entered Austria was rejected. The Court found that the applicant had no well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin nor was he to be granted the subsidiary protection status.  

Recalling the direct applicability of the Qualification Directive (Article 28, 29, recital 34), the Labour and Social Court of Vienna held that the refusal of a care allowance for beneficiaries of subsidary protection status was unlawful. The (minimum) core benefits to be granted to beneficiaries of subsidary protection status are to include at least support in the event of illness, whereby in accordance with Community law, the Austrian care allowance represented such support in the event of illness.

In this case the Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive applying the decision of the CJEU in Elgafaji (C-465/07; 17 February, 2009).

The applicant was the leader of the PKK and the most wanted person in Turkey. He was arrested and sentenced to the death penalty. Breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 6 were found with regard to his detention, the imposition of the death penalty and his rights as the defence to a fair trial.

The Court found that in the event of the United Kingdom Secretary of State’s decision to extradite a fugitive indicted of murder in the United States being implemented, there would be a violation of Article 3 due to the possibility of his conviction of a death sentence, and the treatment and punishment he would face on death row in Virginia.