Case summaries

B.G., a citizen of the Russian Federation, applied for refugee status, citing persecution experienced due to his brother being in prison. The authorities of both instances questioned his credibility, citing numerous inconsistencies in the various testimonies given. The foreignor then appealed to the Regional Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the proceedings had been conducted properly and referring to the fact that the foreignor was able to flee internally in his country of origin.

The authority conducting the proceedings provides, where necessary, translations into Polish of documents in a foreign language that are admissible as evidence in refugee status proceedings.

The option of internal flight means that if there is a part of the country of origin where there are no circumstances justifying the foreignor's fear of persecution or serious harm and it can reasonably be presumed that the foreignor will be able to move there without impediment, there is no well-founded fear of persecution or actual risk of serious harm in the country of origin. If the conditions in one region do not suit the foreignor, he can try to move to another part of the country.

The Applicant was a homosexual male from Iran who had renounced Islam and was studying the catechism of the Roman Catholic doctrine. It was held that the Applicant had no well-founded (objective) fear of persecution on the grounds of changing his religious beliefs.

Regarding the risks associated with his sexual orientation, the fear that the Applicant expressed was deemed to be well-founded, and it was held that not externalising his sexual orientation to avoid danger would, in and of itself, constitute serious harm to his right to respect for his private life and his right to not be discriminated against. Therefore, his refugee status was recognised and he was granted the international protection in the form of refugee status.

Despite his family ties, the Applicant was denied an extension to his residence document as he was regarded as a threat to public order and security.

The question was what emphasis had to be placed on the Union membership of the Applicant’s spouse and child of whom they had joint custody.

The expulsion of an asylum seeker after asylum proceedings lasting approximately eight years without any culpable delay by the Applicant, during which he established a family and also integrated well in other respects, infringes his right to a private and family life.

The application by the Applicant for the assignment of a legal adviser for the appeal proceedings was rejected by the Asylum Court because it was late, as the Applicant had only submitted the application after the expiry of the one-month transition period. The Constitutional Court annulled the corresponding transitional regulation on grounds of unconstitutionality: a deadline of only one month was too short to deal with the lack of understanding of asylum seekers of the language and law.

An exclusion order was issued to the Applicant and therefore a measure within the meaning of the Returns Directive. Without undertaking an oral hearing, the appeals authority confirmed the issue of the exclusion order, but reduced its duration. In accordance with Art 47 Para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the appeals authority was however obliged to undertake an oral hearing.

The decision to expel an orphaned minor to Poland when he had a legal guardian in Austria gave rise to a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR. The Asylum Court made its decision without providing clear reasons. The applicant’s family ties in the home country and in Austria must be considered, regardless of the duration of the applicant’s stay in Austria. The sovereignty clause must be applied when there is a real risk of a violation of Art 8 ECHR.

The applicant stated that he had been a member of the Taliban amongst other things. The Federal Asylum Agency (BAA) declared that the expulsion of the applicant to Afghanistan was permissible. The Asylum Court acted on the assumption of the existence of the ground for exclusion from asylum of ”Crimes against humanity“ and therefore granted neither asylum nor subsidiary protection, but revoked the expulsion to Afghanistan. The Constitutional Court allowed the appeal by the applicant against this decision as sufficient findings were not established in relation to the assumed crime against humanity.

1. The expulsion of a recognised refugee may only take place subject to the requirements of Article 21 (3) in conjunction with (2) and Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive.

2. Compelling grounds for public security or order according to Article 24 (1) of the Qualification Directive do not presuppose any outstanding acts of extraordinary danger in support of international terrorism; neither does specific involvement of a sympathiser suffice unless it is characterised by a large degree of continuity and as such shapes and influences the environment of the terrorist organisation. 

It is the duty of the administrative authority to establish all of the facts that are important in a procedure, and thus to complete the background information for a decision to the extent that it forms a reliable basis for the decision-making itself.

The administrative authority is not relieved of this duty even with regard to the provisions of Section 34(3) of Act No 71/1967 Coll. on administrative procedure (hereinafter the “Administrative Procedure Code“), according to which the participants in a procedure must put forward the evidence that is known to them in support of their claims.