Skip to content
Support our work

AF – LVwG 20.3-915/2016

Country Austria
Status FINAL
Court Regional Administrative Court of Styria
Relevant Law Article 5 (1) and (4) Regulation (EC) 562/2006, Article 13 Regulation (EC) 562/2006, Article 25 Regulation (EC) 562/2006
Year 2016
Found for Applicant

The applicant is a Syrian national who entered Austria at the Spielfeld border crossing in 2016. After being subjected to identification and registration procedures, the applicant was readmitted to Slovenia. The registration form noted that there were “no humanitarian reason”. The interpreter did not inform the applicant of complaints avenues against the decision. The name of the interpreter was missing from the registration form. The Court referred to the judgments of S K on 27 June 2016, GZ: LVwG 20.3-873/2016, LVwG 21. 3-874/2016 and stated that there had been interviews in which the interpreter acted on his/her own authority and made prejudicial assessments. Errors made by interpreters were assigned to the state as responsible, in line with the Court’s previous case law. In addition, the Court stated that the communication between the border guard and the interpreter was inadequate in the case since it led to the applicant’s denial to apply for asylum. The Court recognized that the applicant had expressed his will to seek asylum in Austria and he should have been protected against deportation if he would have been properly interviewed or provided with a proper interpreter. The complainant attended the hearing in person (he had been granted asylum in Slovenia and issued a passport).

The Court scrutinized the case also under Art. 13 Regulation EC No. 562/2006 and Art. 5 (1) and (4) and found that the Austrian border guards acted in disrespect of the provisions.

The Court also dealt with Art. 25 of Regulation (EC) 562/2006 (former Schengen Borders Code) regarding Austria’s reinstatement of border controls “where a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a Member State requires immediate action to be taken”. The applicant’s representative requested that the Court refer to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the (former) Schengen Border Code. The Court rejected the request.