Case Law

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 18 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 2, 20, 23 and 31 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), and of Article 25(6) and Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

22 February 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Family reunification - Right to family life - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Austria - Belgium - Syrian Arab Republic

In it’s judgement E 2372/2021 issued 7 October 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that due to “UNHCR International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing the Republic of Iraq” from May 2019, Sunni Arab men and boys of fighting age, who lived in an area under ISIS control and/or where ISIS maintains a presence and women and children associated with real or perceived ISIS members on account of their family or tribal relations meet a specific risk profile as they are under general suspicion of supporting ISIS. Therefore, people fulfilling these characteristics are likely in need of international refugee protection, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Referring to the UNHCR International Protection Considerations as well as the “EASO Country Guidance: Iraq” from January 2021 the Constitutional Court ruled that the Federal Administrative Court must duly take into consideration the individual situation of the complainant against the backdrop of the specific risk profile in case the complainant has put forward fear of persecution because of the affiliation to the risk profile in a substantiated way. In the present case the Federal Administrative Court assumed that the alleged threat by Shiite militias was due to the battles between ISIS, militias and Iraqi units at that time and has not been directed against the complainant or his family directly. It denied an individual persecution without considering that the complainant – a Sunni Arab of fighting age, who lived in an area under ISIS control – was meeting a specific risk profile. The Federal Administrative Court’s findings were thus found to be arbitrary by the Constitutional Court.

27 January 2022 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Armed forces / Military - Asylum-seekers - International armed conflict - Social group persecution | Countries: Austria - Iraq

The Constitutional Court addressed its judgement E 3445/2021 (issued 30 September 2021) that an extreme volatility of the security situation in Afghanistan was to be assumed based on country information sheets on Afghanistan issued by the Austrian COI Unit on 11 June 2021 and 19 July 2021 at the date of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on 29 July 2021. In addition, the widespread media coverage after 20 July 2021 (which was therefore available at the time of the decision of the Federal Administrative Court) lead to the same conclusion. The complainant would have therefor been exposed to a real danger of violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR if he were to return to Afghanistan. (see also E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021)

30 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

In its judgment E 3047/2021 issued 24 September 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that based on the Austrian COI Unit’s (Staatendokumentation) country information sheet on Afghanistan dated 11 June 2021 , the risk of an armed conflict between the Taliban and government troops affecting the whole country should have been apparent to the Federal Administrative Court at the date of its decision on 1 July 2021. Thus, the risk of a serious threat to life or physical integrity as a result of arbitrary violence in the context of an internal conflict for members of the civilian population such as the complainant must have been clear to the Federal Administrative Court at the time of its decision. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court found that due to the widespread media coverage of the developments in Afghanistan, the Federal Administrative Court had to assume that the security situation in Afghanistan was to be classified as extremely volatile. It also reiterated that widespread media coverage must be considered notorious. The Constitutional Court therefore found that the Federal Administrative Court did not meet its obligation to investigate in detail the existence of a real risk of a violation of Art 2 or Art 3 ECHR if the complainant were to return to Afghanistan in view of the almost daily changing situation in the armed conflict between the Taliban and the Afghan government and its troops. The Federal Administrative Court had denied a military conflict in certain places, without considering the serious threat of an imminent significant deterioration of the security situation, that had in fact already partially occurred across the country and was possibly imminent in the places which the Federal Administrative Court considered an internal flight alternative for the complainant (namely Mazar-e Sharif and Herat). Since the Federal Administrative Court’s assumption of the complainant’s return situation in line with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR was solely momentarily without considering the rapidly changing security situation in Afghanistan, its findings were found to be arbitrary by the Constitutional Court.

24 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

preliminary ruling on interpretation of article 40 Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection

9 September 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq

(1) The concept of ‘new elements or findings [that] have arisen or have been presented by the applicant’, as used in Article 40(2) and (3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, must be interpreted as meaning that it also covers elements or findings which already existed before the procedure relating to a previous application for international protection was definitively concluded, but which were not relied on by the applicant in the context of that procedure. (2) Article 40(3) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the substantive examination of a subsequent application does not require a specific procedure, provided that the national procedure fulfils the requirements laid down in Chapter II of that directive. Article 42(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 40(2) to (4) and Article 33(2)(d) thereof, must be interpreted as prohibiting the setting of time limits per se. (3) Article 40(4) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition relating to the absence of fault laid down therein cannot be applied in the context of an administrative procedure unless that condition is expressly laid down in national law in a manner that satisfies the requirements of legal certainty. It is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case here.

15 April 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Austria - Iraq

The contested finding therefore lacks a conclusive reason why there is no persecution relevant to asylum, in the absence of a discussion of the dangers that threaten the complainant due to the attempted forced recruitment, which has been found to be credible. Likewise, in connection with the examination of the requirements for the granting of the status of subsidiary protection, there is no comprehensible reason for the statement that the complainant is not at risk from the Taliban in Mazar-e Sharif and that a return there is safe and reasonable while the UNHCR guidelines basically assume that there is no internal flight alternative in Afghanistan for people who are persecuted by the Taliban

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Non-state agents of persecution | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria

The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) failed to provide the necessary justification for a finding about the supposed availability of an IFA in Mazar-e Sharif, despite the EASO Country-Guidance on Afghanistan (2018) and respective findings regarding the situation of Afghans who were born in Iran and/or who lived there for a long time.

12 December 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of