Euroopa Liidu Kohus
26.07.2017
Facts:
Moussa Sack, a Malian national, arrived in Italy in 2015 and applied for international protection. He was interviewed by the Regional Commission for the recognition of international protection in Milan in March 2016. The Commission rejected his application, deeming it manifestly unfounded and based purely on economic motives. He appealed the rejection before the Tribunale di Milano, but Italian law allows courts to dismiss manifestly unfounded appeals without hearing the applicant again. In June 2016, the Tribunale di Milano referred a preliminary question to the CJEU asking whether this procedure complies with the Asylum Procedures Directive and the right to an effective remedy under the EU Charter.
Questions referred to the CJEU by the national courts:
Can a national court dismiss an asylum appeal as manifestly unfounded without a further hearing if the applicant was already interviewed and the rejection decision is deemed incontrovertible, without violating the right to effective remedy and fair trial?
Court’s Ruling:
The core argument was whether EU asylum law permits national courts to dismiss asylum appeals as manifestly unfounded without holding an additional hearing, especially when a personal interview has already occurred during the first-instance procedure.
The CJEU clarified that such a practice is not precluded by EU law, provided certain conditions are met. First, a personal interview must have taken place during the initial administrative stage, in accordance with Article 14 of the Asylum Procedures Directive. Second, the report or transcript of that interview is included in the case file, as required by Article 17(2). Additionally, the court can still order a hearing if necessary to ensure that applicant’s rights to a fair hearing and an effective remedy, as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights are upheld.
The Court emphasized that while hearings are important, they are not an absolute requirement - especially where the file already contains sufficient information to ensure a fair review. However, if the court believes that a hearing is essential to assess the applicant’s situation, it must not be prevented by national law from holding one. While fundamental rights may be subject to limitations, such limitations must be proportionate and must not affect the essence of those rights. Thus, Member States may adopt streamlined appeal procedures, but only if they preserve core procedural safeguards.