A Cameroonian national requested international protection in the Republic of Cyprus on 7 October 2019. The Cypriot Asylum Service rejected the applicant’s request on 14 January 2022.

The applicant appealed the decision arguing that there was a lack of due investigation and reasoning. She further argued that the challenged decision was issued in a legally flawed procedure. The Asylum Service argued that the challenged decision was taken after a thorough investigation of all the relevant elements of the case, within the limits of their discretion, and following a statutory procedure where sufficient questions were submitted to the applicant and where the examination of her answers was done in good faith, objectively and without prejudice

The court noted that although the applicant underlined that she was a victim of sexual violence and there were serious indications of vulnerability and PTSD in her file, the authority proceeded to carry out the interview without obtaining an expert report on her medical state of health or applying any procedural guarantee. Also, the authority did not wait for the medical results before drafting the decision so that any findings thereof would be duly considered while assessing the application. As a result, the procedure lacked due investigation regarding the profile of the applicant and her potential vulnerability. Moreover, the entire procedure was devoid of all due procedural guarantees since the statutorily mandated procedure to examine the possibility of granting these guarantees was not followed.

Specifically, the court noted that the decision of the responsible officer to refer the applicant immediately after the end of the interview to medical examinations provided a serious indication of her state of health and/or psychological state, which required further investigation. Besides, the court noted that whilst the applicant was referred for medical examinations, no further indication was found as to whether the applicant was finally referred to the respective examinations.

The court highlighted that the applicant's vulnerability assessment was of particular importance to the extent that it could have constituted a separate material claim which should be individually assessed, and which should be considered as part of her profile. Then, a finding of vulnerability would be linked both to the assessment of the credibility of her claims in general, and to the risk assessment in the event of return to her country of origin.

By referring to national case law [F.E.A. v.  the Republic of Cyprus through the Asylum Service], the court restated that respecting Article 24 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 10A of the Refugee Law entails evaluating the special needs of applicants for international protection before issuing a decision. The court emphasized that the asylum procedure is not only concerned with the substantive examination of the applicant's claims, but also with respect to the prescribed procedural rules aimed at protecting the rights of applicants, particularly those who are in a state of vulnerability. Adherence to these rules is a guarantee for the fair treatment of applicants and the correct examination of applications for international protection. To draw this conclusion, the court referred to the EASO, Judicial Analysis - Vulnerability in the context of applications for International Protection (2021).

The court annulled the decision on the grounds of lack of proper investigation.

Subsequently, the court provided reasons for respecting the principle ne ultra petita partiam and not go beyond the claims brought before it even when the IPAC has full jurisdiction for ex nunc review. In doing this, the court referred to its case law and the specific circumstances of the case. In particular, the court highlighted that it is not the competent body to carry out the medical examination, nor to evaluate the results of the respective examination, nor subsequently assess which procedural guarantees are appropriate under the circumstances.

Neither should the court assume, substitute, or become a second administration to decide on the merits of the asylum application without completion of the prescribed administrative procedures. Therefore, the court noted that it cannot proceed with a full substantive examination of the application without violating its jurisdictional nature. In concluding this, the court pointed at the articles of the Refugee Laws which foresee expressly and unequivocally, exclusive jurisdiction to the asylum service to decide on the need to provide specific procedural needs.

The court clarified that in such cases, it cannot be expected to decide what procedural safeguards should be given to the applicant and then conduct an ex officio hearing to provide those safeguards. It noted that in addition to being prevented by its statutory provisions from assuming power expressly assigned to the administrative authority, the court lacks the necessary mechanisms to render properly and fully the procedural guarantees required in the case of vulnerable applicants.

The court emphasized that the concept of vulnerability is multi-layered and complex. It requires the application of special procedures that are not only legal in nature but also medical, psychological and social. It noted that administrative authorities have the mechanisms and tools to approach these cases in a comprehensive way, ensuring that the application will be evaluated in light of all possible dimensions. The court nuanced that, the procedural guarantees provided by law, especially for persons who may be victims of abuse or sexual violence, must be provided from the first stage of the process, that is, during the interview before the competent authorities. If the court were to take on this role, it would risk reducing the effectiveness of the process while facing difficulties in providing these guarantees as it has neither the infrastructure nor the tools to offer the appropriate protection and psychological support that an applicant may need. To support this argumentation the court referred to CJEU C-517/17, Milkiyas Addis v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and C-406/22, CV v Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky , Odbor azylové a migrační politiki.

The court concluded that only the annulment of the contested decision and the referral of the case to the administration ensures that the case will be re-examined based on the full implementation of the legal and procedural guarantees for a full and fair examination of the asylum application. It ordered:

(a) to proceed with the necessary actions to examine, through the competent authorities, the medical/psychological condition of the applicant,

(b) and subsequently, once the conclusions of the experts have been received and are subject to evaluation and once the appropriate procedural guarantees have been determined finally imposed, to examine the necessity of conducting a new interview of the applicant.