The case concerned an appeal brought by the applicants in asylum proceedings against the decision of the administrative court to rule in the case without a personal hearing of the applicant. In fact, the applicant was informed in the summons dated 15 November 2021 that the appointment for the hearing was scheduled for 28 January 2022, 9:30 a.m. and in case of failure to attend, negotiations and decisions can also be taken without them (Section 102 (2) Asylum Act). After prior notification by telephone, the applicant's lawyer sent in a letter dated 27 January 2022, received by the administrative court at 1:15 p.m., and informed the court that the family was in quarantine because one of their daughters was suffering from COVID-19 and had applied for the appointment to be rescheduled. After the application was rejected, the applicant's legal representative submitted a copy of the official certificate of the positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test of the applicant, in a letter dated of 27 January 2022, which was received by the administrative court on the same day at 7:00 p.m.. The applicants requested again the rescheduling of the hearing and with a letter of 28 January 2022, received by the administrative court on the same day at 09:11 a.m., the legal representative submitted a copy of the certificate of the quarantine obligation for the first applicant, but the request was rejected by the administrative court.

The applicants contested the decision before the High Administrative Court which court considered that the appeal of the applicants is admissible due to the existence of a procedural shortcoming related to the right of the applicant to be heard.

The right to a fair hearing guarantee that a party involved can have a say before a court decision affecting his rights and, as a subject, can influence the proceedings. The judicial decision may only be based on facts and evidence on which the parties involved had the opportunity to comment. In principle, however, there is no entitlement to this having to take place in an oral hearing but in the present case it found that all the letters and evidence submitted by the applicants and his lawyers were sufficient to demonstrate the legal impossibility of attending the hearing on the date of 28 January 2022. In addition, the administrative court could have consulted with the office responsible for confirming the quarantine at short notice if there were doubts due to the allegations - if necessary, under the telephone number communicated by the legal representative in the letter of 27 January 2022. 

The High Administrative Court allowed the appeal and decided that the analysis of the application continues under the appeal procedure.