The applicant was a Russian national. They applied for international protection in Estonia on the grounds of their transgender identity, which was not disputed, as well as of their political opinions. The applicant has made donations to the Ukrainian armed forces since the beginning of the war and initiated the process to acquire Ukrainian citizenship, as they were descendants of Ukrainian citizens and identified as such.

The Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) considered the application to be unfounded and rejected it. The applicant appealed against this decision before the Tallinn Administrative Court, requesting its annulment and for the PBGB to be obliged to re-examine his application arguing that the PBGB’s decision resulted from procedurally flawed proceedings.

The Tallinn Administrative Court noted that the PBGB had failed:

• To indicate clearly the factual and legal basis for their decision;
• To assess properly the special procedural needs of the applicant, who was merely asked to fill in a vulnerability form on their own;
• To present their reasoning and draw logical conclusions from the country-of-origin information they analysed;
• To assess the risk of persecution by private individuals besides the risk of persecution by the state authorities;
• To assess the grounds for the application (transgender identity, citizenship, political opinion) cumulatively;
• To assess the risk upon return, notably by downplaying it on the basis that the applicant could conceal their political opinions.
• To rely on updated country-of-origin information. 

The court noted that the administrative authority has the obligation in the international protection procedure to assess the ability of a person (including his or her possible special procedural need) to provide the relevant circumstances related to the application and to comply with the principle of investigation prescribed by law. The court ruled that the mere fact of filling in a statement of vulnerability may not be sufficient to assess the special procedural need of an LGBT+ person diagnosed with depression.

At the hearing, the court could not conclude from the contact with the applicant that they did not need special support and stated that if a person does not understand or acknowledge their need for help, this does not always mean that they do not need help. The court underlined that the least that the determining authority should do in such a situation is to persuade a person to contact the Estonian Human Rights Centre in order to ensure procedural support and legal representative starting already in the administrative proceedings.

The court reiterated that when assessing the merits of a case and establishing a risk of persecution, it is not decisive whether a person has been also subjected to acts of persecution before leaving the country of origin, but it is important to assess and it is sufficient to assess the likelihood of persecution upon return to the country of origin. The court noted that the administrative court focused mainly on the question whether the applicant has been already persecuted in Russia.

The Tallinn Administrative Court annulled the PBGB’s decision and ordered the re-examination of the application.