Austria
- Case Law 6
UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
- Amnesty International - Austria
- Austria: Federal Chancellery
- Bundesministerium für Inneres, Republik Österreich
- Council of Europe, Venice Commission: Constitutional Courts (Links)
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Austria
- Independent Federal Asylum Board of Austria
- International Committee of the Red Cross - The ICRC delegation in Brussels
- Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) - Austria
- Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes - RIS)
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - Austria
- ReliefWeb - Austria
- UNHCR - Austria
- United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - Austria
- United States Department of State - Austria
- World Health Organization (WHO) - Austria
|
E 4682/2019-10
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) | Document type: Case Law | 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 |
|
Loffelmann v. Austria
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. 12 March 2009 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom of conscience - Freedom of religion - Jehovah's Witness - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Religious discrimination | Countries: Austria |
|
Gutl v. Austria
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. 12 March 2009 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom of conscience - Freedom of religion - Jehovah's Witness - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription - Religious discrimination | Countries: Austria |
|
O. v. Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Niederösterreich
22 February 2005 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Austria - Türkiye |
|
Case Regarding Desertion of an Iraqi Kurd
Full translation of German original. 21 March 2002 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Kurd - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Austria - Iraq |
|
AAF v. Federal Asylum Review Board
21 March 2002 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Austria - Iraq |
