Austria: Asylum law in conflict with the Constitution

International Journal of Constitutional Law

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 689-701

  Kotschy, Bettina ^a  

^a European Court of Justice ^*  (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749850998     PISSN: 14742640     EISSN: 14742659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icon/mol031     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Verfassungsgerichtshof [VfGH] [Constitutional Court], Oct. 15, 2004, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes [VfSlg] No. 17340, available at Bundeskanzleramt Rechtsinformationssystem [BKA/RIS] http://www.ris.bka.gv.at.
2. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November, 1950 [hereinafter European Convention of Human Rights or ECHR].
3. Bundesverfassungsgesetz über den Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit [PersonenfreiheitsG] [Law Concerning Personal Freedom], BGBl No. 684/ 1988 (Austria).
4. Asylgesetz 1997 [AsylG] [Asylum Law], BGBl I No. 76/1997, as amended by BGBl I No. 101/2003 [entered into force on May 1, 2004] (Austria).
5. See, e.g., the law amending the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [GG] [Federal Constitution] BGBl 1993 I, 1002 (F.R.G.); Gesetz zur Ä nderung asylverfahrens-, ausländer- und staatsangehörigkeitsrechtlicher Vorschriften [Law Amending Regulations Concerning Asylum Claims, Foreigners and Nationality], June 28, 1993, BGBl 1993 I, 1062 (F.R.G.)
6. Lov nr. 365 af 6. juni 2002 om ændring af udlændingeloven og ægteskabsloven med flere love (Afskaffelse af de facto-flygtningebegrebet, effektivisering af asylsagsbehandlingen, skærpede betingelser for meddelelse af tidsubegrænset opholdstilladelse og stramning af betingelserne for familiesammenføring m.v.) [Law Amending the Aliens Act] (Lovtidende A 2002) (Denmark); Vreemdelingenwet [Aliens Act] 2000, Stb. 2000, 495 (Neth.).
7. See VfGH, VfSlg Nos. 13834, 15173, 15218, 15369, 15529, 16122, 16192, 16999 (Austria).
8. The Austrian Constitution is made up of the Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz [B-VG], BGBl No. 1/1930, as amended by BGBl No. 1013/1994, and a number of constitutional laws and provisions having the same status in the hierarchy of norms. These constitutional laws and provisions can be adopted with special quora [presence: 1/2 of the Members of Parliament; consensus: 2/3 of the votes cast]. See art. 44 (1) and (2) B-VG.
9. For more information see generally Robert Walter & Heinz Mayer, Bundesverfassungsrecht 49, 214 (Manz'sche Verlagsu. Universitätsbuchhandlung 2000).
10. Art. 140 B-VG.
11. Art. 140 (1) B-VG. See Walter & Mayer, supra note 7, at 475.
12. See Walter & Mayer, supra note 7, at 545, 553.
13. Courts of second or last instance and, specifically, the Unabhängige Verwaltungssenate [Independent Administrative Tribunals], the Unabhängiger Bundesasylsenat [Independent Federal Asylum Review Board] and the Bundesvergabeamt [Federal Authority for Public Procurement], in the context of cases brought before them: See arts. 140 (1) and 129/c/ (1) B-VG.
14. Art. 140 (1) B-VG. See Walter & Mayer, supra note 7, at 476-478.
15. If the law impinges on their rights and if they are directly concerned: art. 140 (1) B-VG. See Walter & Mayer, supra note 7, at 478.
16. Art. 140 para. 1 B-VG. See, e.g., VfSlg No. 13834.
17. Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz [Statute of the Constitutuional Court] BGBl No. 85/1953, §64 para. 1, as amended by BGBl No. 311/1976 (Austria).
18. Art. 140 para. 5 B-VG.
19. Art. 140 para. 7 B-VG.
20. In Austria, administrative decisions are traditionally subject to review by administrative authorities of several instances and may only then be brought before a court (i.e. the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court). In view of article 6 of the ECHR, however, this system was changed for decisions concerning "civil rights and obligations" or "criminal charges." Hence, for instance, decisions on asylum are now subject to immediate judicial review by the Unabhängige Bundesasylsenat (§38 AsylG). See Walter & Mayer, supra note 7, at 392, 393.
21. See Rudolf Feik, Fremdenrecht, in Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht 79, 111 (Susanne Bachmann ed., Springer 2004).
22. Art. 18 para. 1 B-VG.
23. Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 4 Protocol No. 4 ECHR.
24. Art. 5 ECHR; PersonenfreiheitsG.
25. Art. 8(1) ECHR.
26. Art. 1 Protocol No. 1 ECHR.
27. Art. 13 ECHR.
28. §32 (1) AsylG.
29. Article 2(1) of the ECHR provides that "[e]veryone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."
30. Article 3 of the ECHR provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
31. Article 13 of the ECHR provides that "[e]veryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
32. See VfSlg Nos. 11196, 11590, 12683, 13003, 13182, 13805 and 14765.
33. See VfSlg No. 13834.
34. See Wille v. Liechtenstein, Judgment of Oct. 28, 1999, App. No. 28396/ 95, para 75
35. Rotaru v. Romania, Judgment of May 4, 2000, App. No. 28341/95, para 67.
36. See Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of July 7, 1989, App. No. 14038/ 88, para. 120
37. Vilvarajah a.o. v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Oct. 30, 1991, App. No. 13163/87 a.o., para. 122
38. Chahal v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Nov. 15, 1996, App. No. 22414/93, para. 145
39. Jabari v. Turkey, Judgment of July 11, 2000, App. No. 40035/98, paras. 48, 50.
40. See generally Bahaddar v. Netherlands (rep.) No. 25894/92, Sept. 13, 1996
41. Chahal v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Nov. 15,. 1996, App. No. 22414/93, para. 86.
42. §32 (1) AsylG.
43. 32 (2) and (8) AsylG.
44. §5(a) (1) second sentence AsylG
45. §32 (2) second sentence AsylG.
46. VfSlg Nos. 11196, 12683, 13003, 13305, 14374, 14548, 14765, and 15511.
47. Chahal v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Nov. 15, 1996, App. No. 22414/93, para. 145
48. Jabari v. Turkey, Judgment of July 11, 2000, App. No. 40035/98, paras. 48, 50.
49. Jabari v. Turkey, Judgment of July 11, 2000, App. No. 40035/98, paras. 48, 50.
50. §5(a) (1) second sentence AsylG
51. §32 (2) second sentence AsylG.
52. §34(b) (1) sentences 1 and 3 AsylG.
53. Article 5(1) of the ECHR provides that "[e]veryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
54. Article 1 of the PersonenfreiheitsG provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security and that nobody may be deprived of his liberty for other reasons than those laid down in that law. Article 2 of the PersonenfreiheitsG lists the reasons for which a person may be deprived of his liberty, one of them being arrest or detention connected to deportation or extradition.
55. Quinn v. France, Judgment of Mar. 23, 1995, App. No. 18580/91, para 48
56. Chahal v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Nov. 15, 1996, App. No. 22414/93, paras 112, 113.
57. §34(b) (1) first sentence AsylG.
58. §34(b) (1) third sentence AsylG.
59. Which is what happened, for instance, in Kosovo after the agreement of Rambouillet.
60. Such as, for instance, critical comments on the prosecuting country.
61. §34(b) (1) first sentence AsylG.
62. §34(b) (1) third sentence AsylG.
63. §4 (2) AsylG.
64. §6 (2) AsylG.
65. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR] and the Constitutional Court, article 3 of the ECHR not only obliges the contracting states to protect individuals within their jurisdiction from ill treatment but also outside of it. Hence, this provision prohibits refoulement. A person may not be expelled where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 (Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of July 7, 1989, App. No. 14038/88, para 91
66. Chahal v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Nov. 15, 1996, App. No. 22414/93, para 74
67. Ahmed v. Austria, Judgment of Dec. 17, 1996, App. No. 25964/94, paras. 39-40
68. Iruretagoyena v. France, (dec.) No. 32829/96, Jan. 12, 1998
69. VfSlg Nos. 13314, 13453, 13561, 13776, 13897, 13981, 14119, and 16160).
70. The same is true if a person is to be expelled to an intermediate country, where he faces no such risk, but where there is no guarantee that he might not be further expelled to a country where he would then face such risk. See T.I. v. United Kingdom (dec.) No. 43844/98, Mar. 7, 2000; VfSlg No. 13897.
71. Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR provides that "[c]ollective expulsion of aliens is prohibited." According to the case law of the ECtHR, article 4 of the Protocol prohibits any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group.
72. Andric v. Sweden (dec.) No. 45917/99, Feb. 23, 1999
73. Conka v. Belgium, Judgment of Feb. 5, 2002, App. No. 51564/99, para 59.
74. §18 (3) AsylG
75. §24 (4) first and second sentences AsylG.
76. Article 8 of the ECHR provides that "(1) [e]veryone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'' The existing case law of the ECtHR does not directly concern the search of persons and their belongings outside their home or office premises. However, the concept of "private life" covers a person's physical and moral integrity. See, in particular, X and Y v. Netherlands, Judgment of Mar. 26, 1985, App. No. 8978/80, para. 22
77. Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Mar. 25, 1992, App. No. 13134/87, para. 34.
78. And article 8(1) of the ECHR protects correspondence, including letters and professional documents. See, e.g., Niemietz v. Germany, Judgment of Dec. 16, 1992, App. No. 13710/88, para 32
79. Goral v. Poland, Judgment of Oct. 30, 2002, App. No. 38654/97, para 82
80. Foxley v. United Kingdom, Judgment of June 20, 2000, App. No. 33274/96, paras. 29, 30.
81. Thus, it is possible that the search of clothing and personal belongings could be considered as falling within the scope of this provision. The Constitutional Court has accepted that the search of persons and their luggage is protected by article 8(1) of the ECHR. See VfSlg No. 13708.
82. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR provides that "[e]very natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties." According to the consistent case law of the ECtHR the object and purpose of article 1 is primarily to guard against the arbitrary confiscation of property. In this context the Court held that the provisional seizure of documents relates to the use of property and falls within the ambit of the second paragraph (sentence) of article 1. See Handyside v. United Kingdom, Judgment of Dec. 7, 1972, App. No. 5493/72, para 62.
83. See VfSlg No. 15431 (concerning a driving license).
84. In this context, member states of the EU are not considered to be "third countries." See VfSlg No. 17340.
85. In 2002-2003, more than 50 percent of the cases were set aside on appeal. See www.parlament.gv.at/portal/ page?_pageid=908,700011&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.
86. See also VfSlg No. 13915.
87. For example, in Germany the Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [German Constitutional Court] may annul provisions of the same law that cannot be detached or are unconstitutional for the same reasons: §78 (2) Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz [BundesverfassungsgerichtsG] [Statute of the Federal Constitutional Court], BGBl 1993 I 1473, as amended by BGBl 2004 I 3396. See Christian Pestalozza, Verfassungsprozessrecht 129 (C.H. Beck 1991).
88. The Spanish Tribunal Constitucional [TC] [Constitutional Court] has similar powers. See Art. 39, Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Constitucional, Boletín Oficial del Estado [B.O.E.] [Official Gazette] 1979, 23186, in the version of B.O.E. 2001, 880.
89. VfSlg Nos. 8871, 11048, and 14533.
90. So-called "constitutional laws." They require special quora. See note 7 and accompanying text.
91. Meaning the intention of the legislator or, more technically, the "hypothetical will of the legislator." Interestingly enough, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) does not consider the hypothetical will of the legislator but focuses, rather, on the substance of the provision. According to the ECJ "partial annulment is not possible where the substance of the provision in question would be altered": Case C-244/03, France v. Parliament and Council, Judgment of May 24, 2005, E.C.R. 1-4024, paras. 13, 14.
92. VfSlg Nos. 11190, 12465, 13094, 13915, and 14044.
93. Other constitutional courts, e.g., the German Bundesverfassungsgericht, have this possibility: See §31 (2), second sentence and x 79 (1) BundesverfassungsgerichtsG). See Alfred Rinken, Artikel 94, in Kommentar Zum Grundgesetz Für die Bunderrepublik Deutschland, Band II, 1079 (R. Wassermann ed. 1989). In Austria, the Constitutional Court can only declare a provision to be unconstitutional without annulling it, if this provision has already ceased to be in force: Art. 140 (4) B-VG.
94. In Spain, for example, the Tribunal Constitucional considers that "in (partly) annulling provisions that are contrary to the Constitution, it does not innovate the legal order (and therefore does not exceed its competence)". Sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional Sistematizadas y Comentadas [S.T.C.] 103/1983 (Spain). This has, however, been criticized (see the dissenting opinions in S.T.C. 103/1983
95. and the submission of the Abogado del Estado [State Attorney] in S.T.C. 72/1994).
96. See A. J. Gòmez Montero, Artículo 39, in Comentarios A La Ley Organica Del Tribunal Constitucional 593 (Juan Luis Requejo Pagés ed., Tribunal Constitucional 2001).
97. The German Bundesverfassungsgericht, for example, refrains from partial annulment "where this would impinge on the freedom of action of the legislator." Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 73, 280, 297 (F.R.G.). See Rinken, supra note 68, at 1079.
98. BGBl. I No. 100/2005.
99. The Asylgesetz 2005 [AsylG 2005] [Asylum Law 2005] introduced, for instance, so-called "leading cases" [Leitentscheidungen] to be decided by the grand chamber of the Bundesasylsenat with the consequence that similar cases could be rendered without an oral hearing. §42 AsylG 2005. Also, it provided that documents would no longer be served on the lawyers of asylum seekers. §23 AsylG 2005.
100. See www.rakwien.at/import/documents/asylgesetz2005.pdf.
101. According to the principle of precedence, Community law prevails over national law. Case 106/77, Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629, para. 17.