BT, VP, AP, VP and IP’s (the applicants) claim for international protection was rejected by the Office for Foreigners, and they appealed this decision before the Refugee Board, who upheld the first-instance decision. The applicants submitted a second appeal before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, who dismissed their complaint. The applicants then submitted a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court, challenging it in its entirety.

In terms of violation of substantive law, the applicants claimed that the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw failed to consider that they met all the conditions for being granted refugee status or, alternatively, subsidiary protection. They also claimed that the Voivodeship Administrative Court arbitrarily denied them the possibility of accessing an additional interview, which would have been necessary due to discrepancies in their testimonies and because the applicants were not provided with the assistance of an interpreter and thus could not sufficiently provide explanations in the language the interview was conducted in. Finally, the applicants noted that the information provided during the first instance procedure should have led to their claims to be considered as proven, in line with provisions related to the burden of proof established in Article 42 of the Polish Asylum Act and Article 4(1) of the (recast) Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU).

The applicants also claimed that there was an infringement of procedural rules, firstly because the Voivodeship Administrative Court did not take all steps necessary to assess the case and to determine the consequences of their return to their country of origin. They also stated that the Voivodeship Administrative Court’s deliberation that their claims were unsubstantiated did not consider the evidence submitted (photographs, psychological examinations, certificates), and that its decision therefore lacked justification. 

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that there were no grounds to consider the first appeal procedure as invalid and stated that the applicants’ allegations of infringement of procedural rules were unfounded.

With regard to language interpretation, the court noted that the applicants had agreed to be interrogated in the language in which the interview was conducted, and that they had claimed to have understood all questions and did not manifest any issues with hearing these questions or needing translation. The court also noted that the interview transcript was presumed to be representative of the course of the interview, and that in order to challenge its credibility, concrete evidence needed to be submitted. Additionally, it stated that when interviews take place in a country’s official language, it can be factually presumed that the concerned party has sufficient knowledge of that language, and that the applicants did not challenge this presumption by expressing that the interview was being conducted in a language which was incomprehensible to them.

The court also pointed out that there is no obligation to conduct additional interviews on the sole basis of the applicants’ request. With regards to the burden of proof, the court noted that provisions of Article 4(1) of the (recast) Qualification Directive do not imply a presumption of the applicants’ assertions as proven, but concern situations in which persons, due to sudden departures from their countries of origin, are unable to take with them evidence of persecution or serious harm. The court stated that this does not exempt determining authorities from the obligation to thoroughly assess applicants’ testimonies, nor derogate from the general principle of law according to which evidence to prove claims must be produced by the claimants.

Regarding evidence assessment, the court determined that allegations of infringement of procedural rules were also unfounded, and that the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw was right in concluding that the evidence collected did not allow to establish that the applicants suffered persecution or serious harm in their country of origin.

The Supreme Administrative Court thus ruled that the cassation appeal was inadmissible.