Ra 2019/18/0353
To invoke the ceased circumstances clause, the circumstances have to have changed since the status was last extended (here: attaining the age of majority). However, changes in circumstances since the protection status was initially granted may also be relevant. 17 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria |
Ra 2016/20/0038
The asylum authority must revoke protection status based on changed circumstances, if it had granted such status based on wrong assumptions even if the applicant had not caused or contributed to this error. (Underlying Case of Mohammed Bilali v BFA C- 720/17) 14 August 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cancellation - Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Regional instruments - Statelessness | Countries: Algeria - Austria - Morocco |
Ra 2019/14/0153
Cessation decisions can be based on an available IFA in the country of origin. Generally, changes after the last extension of subsidiary protection status are relevant to determine the change of circumstances. Attaining the age of majority constitutes a relevant change of individual circumstances. 27 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Changes of circumstances in home country - Complementary forms of protection - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria |
Mohammed Bilali v Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Case C‑720/17) (request for preliminary ruling)
Article 19(1) 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, read in conjunction with Article 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must revoke subsidiary protection status if it granted that status when the conditions for granting it were not met, in reliance on facts which have subsequently been revealed to be incorrect, and notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State on that occasion. 23 May 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Statelessness | Countries: Austria |
Conclusion de l'Avocat general Bot dans l'affaire C-720/17 Mohammed Bilali contre Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl [demande de décision préjudicielle formée par le Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Cour administrative, Autriche)]
Une autorité nationale compétente peut-elle se fonder sur les dispositions prévues à l’article 19 de la directive 2011/95/UE (2) afin de procéder à la révocation du statut conféré par la protection subsidiaire à un apatride, et ce en raison d’une appréciation erronée des besoins de protection internationale dont elle est seule responsable ? 24 January 2019 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Complementary forms of protection - Exclusion clauses - Statelessness | Countries: Algeria - Austria |
Ra 2018/18/0533
The applicant is an Afghan national and member of the ethnic group of Hazaras who was born and raised in Iran. He lodged an application for international protection in Austria in July 2015 which was rejected in first instance in September 2017.The Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 03/09/2018, arguing that even though the applicant cannot return to Sar-e Pol (where his family was originally from), there was an IFA available in Kabul or Mazar-e Sharif. It elaborated that the applicant had already gathered professional experience, had grown up in an Afghan family and was native speaker of one of the official languages and concluded that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan. The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court annulled this decision. It stated that the Federal Administrative Court's conclusion that the applicant was familiar with the cultural circumstances in Afghanistan was not evidence-based and emphasized that that the applicant had explicitly contested this. Furthermore the Supreme Administrative Court criticized that the Federal Administrative Court did not take into account and analyse the UNHCR-Afghanistan guidelines. A respective obligation derives from the respective Austrian case law as well as from European Union Law. The Court emphasized that according to UNHCR there was in general no IFA available in Kabul and that the availability of an IFA in other cities was questionable and needed to be assessed in a thorough manner on a case-to-case basis. 13 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Iran, Islamic Republic of |
Ahmad Shah Ayubi v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Linz-Land (C‑713/17) (request for preliminary ruling)
1. Article 29 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, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that refugees with a temporary right of residence in a Member State are to be granted social security benefits which are less than those received by nationals of that Member State and refugees who have a permanent right of residence in that Member State. 2. A refugee may rely on the incompatibility of legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, with Article 29(1) of Directive 2011/95 before the national courts in order to remove the restriction on his rights provided for by that legislation. 21 November 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Refugee / Asylum law | Countries: Austria |
The Queen on the application of:1) Hemmati; 2)Khalili;3) Abdulkadir; 4) Mohammed (Appellants) - and - The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
and Between The Queen on the application of SS (Respondent) -and- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles"). 4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Ra 2017/19/0531
the term "particularly serious crime" concerns only criminal offenses that objectively violate particularly important legal interests. Typically, serious crimes include homicides, rape, child abuse, arson, drug trafficking, armed robbery, and the like. 5 April 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Serious non-political crime | Countries: Austria - Syrian Arab Republic |
VfGH 07.03.2018, G 136/2017 ua
recognized refugees are entitled to the same amount of social welfare as Austrian citizens in line with Art. 23 of the 1951 Convention 7 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Austria: Constitutional Court of Austria (Verfassungsgerichtshof) | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Economic, social and cultural rights - Equality before the law | Countries: Austria |