On February 11, 2022, the Federal Administrative Court issued an oral decision rejecting the appeal against detention pending deportation filed by a person represented by the BBU at that time. It was not until September 7, 2022, almost seven months later, that the written version of the decision was issued. Following my appeal to the Constitutional Court, the Court justified the annulment of the contested decision by stating that the duty to substantiate administrative court decisions, which is required by the rule of law, also implies the duty to issue a written version of the decision as soon as possible, because otherwise the person seeking legal protection could be denied effective legal protection. In view of the long period of time between the oral delivery and the written issuance of the contested decision and the necessity of a prompt written issuance in proceedings regarding appeals against detention pending deportation, my client was denied effective legal protection.

(VfGH 28.02.2023, E 2830/2022)

TOMORROW, 26.01.2023, 18.00 – 20.00, Grünes Haus, Kaiser-Franz-Josef-Kai 70, Graz:

Introduction to asylum and alien law for volunteers

Interested volunteers will get an insight into the asylum procedure, an overview of the most important legal basics and the opportunity to clarify current questions and practical problems.

9 January, 2023, 14.00 – 17.00 Uhr, Uni Graz, Elisabethstraße 50b:

Legal counsel and representation in asylum law

The interactive lecture deals with the national and international legal framework, its relation to the international human rights system as well as current issues and actual cases.

Today Thomas Becker and I will discuss current problems with the participants on the basis of selected cases from our legal practice, such as the changing situation in Afghanistan and its impact on the decision-making practice of the authorities and courts.

I recently represented a five-year-old girl from Afghanistan, born in Austria, whose mother had died and for whom custody had been transferred to the child and youth welfare agency. The Federal Administrative Court subsequently granted the girl the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection, while it dismissed my client’s application for the status of beneficiary of asylum essentially on the grounds that it could not recognize any persecution relevant to asylum, for example due to internalization of a “Western” way of life, also because of her young age. Although the court said that it could not ignore the well-founded fears that the situation in Afghanistan could deteriorate significantly since the Taliban came to power, the court could not yet foresee further developments. There was also no indication for the court that all Afghan women were equally exposed to asylum-relevant persecution merely because of their gender.

My appeal against this decision to the Constitutional Court was successful:

The lecture provides participants with an introduction to the system of human rights protection in general as well as a more in-depth look at selected human rights issues.

On 12 October 2021, at 5:00 p.m., Renate Kicker and I will discuss selected aspects of the fundamental human right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment with the participants with a focus on torture prevention in places of deprivation or restriction of personal liberty, such as in prisons and care facilities, or in case of coercive acts by the police.

Violation in the constitutionally guaranteed right to life under Article 2 ECHR and in the right under Article 3 ECHR not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment:

Despite the extreme volatility of the security situation and the precarious supply situation in Afghanistan evident at that time, the Federal Administrative Court still dismissed the complaint of a person who had fled Afghanistan as unfounded in mid-November 2021 – i.e. months after the Taliban had taken complete power in Afghanistan – and thus confirmed the return decision issued against the person. One of the reasons given by the court was that, in its view, the security situation in Afghanistan was expected to calm down after the Taliban took power (sic!).

The Constitutional Court also overturned this decision in its ruling of 29 June 2022, E 4621/2021, which was delivered today:

The interactive lecture deals with the national and international legal framework, its relation to the international human rights system as well as current issues and actual cases.

On 1 June 2022 Thomas Becker and I will discuss current problems with the participants on the basis of selected cases from our legal practice, such as the changing situation in Afghanistan and its impact on the decision-making practice of the authorities and courts.

A man from Bangladesh claimed in his asylum proceedings that he is homosexual and lives in a homosexual partnership. In his country of origin, homosexual relationships are illegal. He wanted to publicly affirm his sexual orientation, but this would result in persecution in Bangladesh.

In its decision of January 2021, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the man’s application for international protection. According to the court, the complainant had not been able to substantiate a concrete threat situation in his country of origin. At the same time, the court ruled that “it must also be stated that the complainant has obviously found contact with the homosexual scene in Austria and now has regular contact with a homosexual Austrian.” The country findings cited by the Federal Administrative Court indicated that homosexual acts in Bangladesh can be punished with life imprisonment.

The appeal filed to the Constitutional Court on behalf of my client challenged the contradictory and incomplete nature of the contested decision and was successful:

When filing her application for international protection, an unaccompanied minor girl had alleged that her father had tried to force her to marry a man.

The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum rejected this application with regard to asylum, but granted her subsidiary protection. The Federal Administrative Court subsequently dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the application with regard to asylum as unfounded.

The Constitutional Court ruled on the complaint filed on behalf of my client that her constitutionally guaranteed right to proceedings before the statutory judge (Art. 83 (2) B-VG) had been violated:

The interactive lecture deals with the national and international legal framework, its relation to the international human rights system as well as current issues and actual cases.

On 10 January 2022, Thomas Becker and I will discuss current problems with the participants on the basis of selected cases from our legal practice, such as the changing situation in Afghanistan and its impact on the decision-making practice of the authorities and courts.