The applicant is a Syrian woman who submitted an application for international protection on basis of fear of being kidnaped or raped by armed groups if returned to her country of origin. She previously had fled to Lebanon where she pursued her studies, but her residency was not extended, and she was threatened to be returned to Syria.

Her application for international protection in Austria was rejected but she was granted subsidiary protection. She appealed against reiterating her claims and mentioning that during the interview before the BFA she felt intimidated by the male interpreter who allegedly used a sharp tone to instruct her not to give detailed answers. During the interview she was not asked about her attitude towards the Assad regime, she was not asked in detail about her fears in the event of return.

For the appeal, a video available on YouTube about demonstrations by civilians in Damascus showed the woman making opening remarks and also showed her opposition or journalistic activity. As already stated in the initial interview, she indicated that as a single, unmarried woman, she would be under the risk of being abducted and raped by the various armed actors or the regime in Syria if she returned. For the appeal, she requested that an oral hearing shall be held.

In the appeal, the judge of the Federal Administrative Court was a male who rejected it without the possibility for an oral hearing. The court indicated that the dangers described by the woman were not sufficiently substantiated.

The applicant submitted a revision appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The court mentioned that Article 20 of the Asylum Act 2005 provides the procedure for interviewing victims in cases of infringement of the right to sexual self-determination and includes the obligation for BFA to appoint a female interpreter during the proceedings because the applicant’s fear of persecution constitutes an interference with sexual self-determination as provided by Article 20 (1) of the Asylum Act.

The prerequisites for the Federal Administrative Court to refrain from holding an oral hearing to decide on an appeal were not met according to section 21 para. 7 of the BFA Procedures Act since the facts establishment and the legal assessment were not duly conducted by the determining authority.

The Administrative Court found a violation of procedural rules and referred to the case law of the Constitutional Court to state that a female judge should have been appointed for the case before the Federal Administrative Court based on Article 20 (2) of the Asylum Act. The court noted that the applicant repeated her complaint on a fear of sexual violence in her country of origin before the BFA and also before the Federal Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that a violation of Article 20 (2) resulted in a lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Administrative Court to examine the case.