According to the CJEU press release:

'An Iraqi national lodged an application for international protection in Greece, alleging that his life was in danger in his country of origin. He stated that he had been injured by a firearm by a member of the family of a young woman with whom he had been in a romantic relationship, and had been the subject of a tribal decision ordering him to be put to death. His application for international protection was rejected, however, due to insufficient evidence being provided.

His appeal against that decision was dismissed by an Independent Appeals Committee as manifestly unfounded. He failed to appear in person before that committee, whilst national legislation establishes a presumption that, where the applicant fails to appear before the body hearing his or her appeal, the appeal has been improperly brought. The Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, before which the action against the decision of an Independent Appeals Committee was brought, referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

That court seeks to ascertain whether the procedural obligation to appear in person and, in particular, the legal consequences of non-compliance with that obligation, are compatible with the EU directive on international protection.

In its judgment today, the Court holds that, read in the light of the right to an effective remedy as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the directive precludes national legislation which, in the event of failure by an applicant for international protection to comply with a procedural obligation to appear in person before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction, the sole objective of which is to verify the applicant’s presence on the national territory and not to be heard, establishes a presumption that the appeal has been improperly brought. The Court considers that, even though the legislation at issue may assist in safeguarding the efficiency of the judicial system, inasmuch as it assists the courts or tribunals hearing those appeals in concentrating on those coming from applicants who have a genuine interest in the outcome of their appeal, it does not observe the principle of proportionality.

According to the Court, less restrictive measures could be adopted, such as allowing applicants to be represented by a lawyer or other person authorised for that purpose and, in order to prove their presence in Greek territory, to appear at a police station or before another public or judicial authority close to where they are staying. Moreover, the obligation for the applicant to appear in person imposes an unreasonable and excessive burden on applicants for international protection who are not staying in the region of Athens, where the appeals are heard. They are required to travel to Athens, solely in order to have their presence recorded, without however necessarily being heard. The disproportionate nature of that legislation is evident, inter alia, from the fact that it establishes an irrefutable presumption that an appeal has been brought improperly, with the result that it must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded, without any examination being conducted as to its merits.'