The administrative court allowed an appeal lodged against a decision of the Foreigners and Border Service (SEF) and ordered the SEF to resume the proceedings. The SEF requested a judicial review, claiming that it did not infringe legal provisions with regard to the constitutional right to have a lawyer.

A, the applicant, alleged before the lower court that constitutional provisions were violated and a breach of Article 16 of the Asylum Act along with a breach of the principle of access to the right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the PRC on the ground that statements made during the asylum interview were made without the presence of a lawyer assisting him. The SEF considered that there is no obligation for the presence of a lawyer during the interview.

In the contested decision, the administrative court considered that the applicant for international protection was not provided certain and proper information on the possibility that, if he has insufficient financial means to cover the cost of a lawyer, he could benefit from free legal aid, ab initio and throughout the proceedings, particularly in the interview as provided by Article 16 of the Asylum Act, failure of which the instruction of the administrative proceedings would be in violation of the principle of good faith and the participation of interested parties.

The Supreme Administrative Court allowed the request for judicial review, considering that the matter was not yet addressed, and it is a new question on the right of asylum, which needs clarification. A final decision is pending.