The case concerned a Syrian national who applied for asylum in Austria on 12 September 2021. He stated to have left Syria because he participated in oppositional demonstrations and therefore feared persecution. With decision of 2 September 2022, the Federal Office for Aliens and Asylum (BFA) rejected the application as regards international protection and granted subsidiary protection. The applicant appealed against the refusal to be granted international protection before the Federal Administrative Court and submitted as a new ground that he feared to be forcibly recruited to military service if he returned to Syria and that the Syrian regime would accuse him of being an oppositionist because of his illegal departure and his asylum application in Austria. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal without holding an oral hearing. The applicant lodged an onward appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court on grounds that he had the right to be heard.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to existing case law according to which the Federal Administrative Court could only refrain from an oral hearing if all facts had been ascertained in full by the administrative authority in a proper investigation procedure and all facts were still up-to-date and complete. An oral hearing had to take place if the applicnat showed any facts that contradicted or went beyond the result of the official investigation procedure.

Based on the above, the Supreme Administrative Court overruled the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on the grounds that since the applicant had put forward new grounds in the appeal proceedings, the lower court had failed to comply with the procedural obligation to hold a hearing and therefore violated Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter.