The applicant, a Russian transgender man diagnosed with autism and ADHD, submitted an application for international protection in Estonia. The PBGB rejected his application. The applicant contested the PBGB’s decision before the Tallinn Administrative Court.

In its decision, the Administrative Court of Tallinn found that the international protection proceedings led by the PBGB violated several procedural requirements and principles. It noted that:

• the PBGB’s vulnerability assessment had been formalistic rather than substantive and that the applicant had been deprived of the necessary support in light of his special needs. In this regard, the court added that the authorities had failed to account for the medical evidence provided, as well as to state clearly whether or not they considered the applicant to have special needs and act accordingly.
• the PBGB had violated the applicant’s right to representation by not allowing his representative to participate in the hearing, a requirement which applied regardless of procedural needs. The court added that the PBGB’s had wrongly argued that the applicant’s ability to inform his representative of the proceedings could justify that they did not do so. The court also noted that the authorities’ decision not to inform the applicant’s representative of the hearing but later on to serve their decision was contrary to the principle of sound administration.
• the PBGB had failed to provide the applicant with the necessary information in a language he understood prior to his hearing although it was not disputed by the authorities that he had limited knowledge of Estonian language.
• the PBGB had violated the applicant’s right to be heard inter alia by not submitting a draft decision nor its observation when inviting him for the hearing. The court added that this violation was also due to the wording of the e-mail, which did not let the applicant know that he could submit observations and opinions during the hearing, but simply that his absence at the hearing would have negative consequences on the international protection proceedings. Finally, the court insisted that the right to be heard must be safeguarded even in cases where no legal provisions explicitly did so, especially in the context of international protection proceedings, as the submission of observations and opinions by the applicant is essential for the authorities to be able to conduct a thorough individual assessment of his personal circumstances.
• the PBGB’s decision was vitiated because it did not state the reasons for which it was adopted and violated the requirement of individual examination of the application. The court noted that the PBGB limited its assessment to the applicant’s situation before leaving Russia and failed to assess the risk he could face upon return. The court added that the PBGB failed to draw the conclusions from the country-of-origin information it based its decision on, in particular regarding the treatment of foreign agents returning to Russia.
• the PBGB’s decision included inappropriate comments.
• the PBGB’s assessment of the need for subsidiary protection was flawed in that it did not account for risks which could arise upon the applicant's return to Russia.

Finally, the court noted that procedural violations by the PBGB were systemic; hence, it ruled that the provision stating that administrative decisions cannot be annulled due to mere procedural violations did not apply in this case. In consequence, the Administrative Court of Tallinn annulled the PBGB’s decision and requested the authorities re-assess the case in line with procedural requirements. The order to leave and prohibition of entry taken on the basis of the contested decision was also annulled.