National case details
Registration ID: 3-15-2423
Instance: Appellate on fact and law
Case status: Pending
Area of law
Safeguards for access to justice
Identification of the case
- Right to liberty and security (art. 6 CFREU)
- Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (art. 47 CFREU)
- Art. 264(2),(5),(6), Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Halduskohtumenetluse seadustik) of 2011
- Art. 361(1),(2)(4), Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (Välismaalasele rahvusvahelise kaitse andmise seadus, VRKS) of 2005
- Art 8(3), Directive 2013/33/EU
Summary of the case
- Administrative judicial enforcement
The Circuit Court found that the administrative court violated the obligation to hear out the appellant. The court summons were only sent to his representative and not to the appellant himself. The fact that the only Farsi interpreter was not available at the moment did not preclude the obligation of the Police and Border Guard Board to find alternative ways to secure the applicant an opportunity to participate to an oral hearing. The administrative court should have tried, in cooperation with the Police and Border Guard Board, to find an interpreter from a foreign country (for example through video or telephone conference).
The Circuit Court further eliminated the procedural violation by hearing out the appellant in the hearing in Circuit Court. The Court also concluded that the application of the Police and Border Guard was grounded. Due to previous reasons, the procedural violation of the administrative court does not give grounds to annul its ruling. On the side of the correctness of the content of the permission granted to Police and Border Guard Board, it is important that the representative of the appellant participated in the oral hearing in the administrative court and had the opportunity to protect the interests if his client.
The Court found that Art. 361(2)(4) had to be interpreted in accordance with Art. 8 (3)(b) of the Directive 2013/33/EU. According to Art. 8, an applicant may be detained only in order to determine the elements founding the application for international protection, which could not be obtained in the absence of detention, in particular when there is a risk of absconding of the applicant. At the time of filing the application to court for the extension of the detention period, the applicant had not given the necessary explanations to Police and Border Guard Board. The Court affirms not to have certainty that the applicant does not leave arbitrarily to follow his family to Finland in case of relocation in accommodation centre. At the time of settling the appeal, there was still a need to determine elements on which the applicant´s application for asylum was based.
Role of the Charter and role of the general principles on enforcement
- Explicit reference to Art. 47, CFREU (right to an effective remedy and a fair trial)
- Right to a fair trial