A woman from Benin requested international protection in Austria on 31 January 2023, citing fear of her husband, to whom she had been forcibly married and who had raped her. On 28 March 2024, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected granting refugee status but granted subsidiary protection status and a temporary residence permit. The applicant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, which considered her account vague, implausible, and contradictory, and concluded that it had not been established that she was a victim of domestic violence in Benin or that she continued to face persecution from her husband. The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal against this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), alleging deficient reasoning. 

SAC recalled that the grounds for a decision by the Federal Administrative Court must be stated clearly enough to allow the parties to pursue legal proceedings and to enable review by higher courts. If fundamental parts of the reasoning of the lower court are incomprehensible, this constitutes a procedural error requiring annulment. SAC emphasised that the Federal Administrative Court was required to respond to all substantiated submissions relevant to the establishment of facts and to assess the evidence comprehensively. 

SAC acknowledged that the applicant made substantiated submissions regarding her fear of persecution by her husband and her country of origin's authorities' inability to protect her, and submitted detailed medical reports concerning her injuries, both in the complaint and in the proceedings. SAC found that the lower court had neitherdrawn any conclusions from these parts of the submissions, nor addressed them in the context of its assessment of the evidence. SAC also held that the lower court failed to assess the applicant’s submissions as to why she was unable to contact the security authorities of her home country.  

The court further underlined that the Federal Administrative Court failed to consider the entirety of the applicant’s submissions, including up-to-date country of origin information, the applicant’s minority status at the time of the forced marriage, and her alleged mental illness, in relation to the inconsistencies in her testimony, and to assess on this basis whether she qualified for refugee status.  

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the lower court’s omission of these elements could have affected the outcome of the proceedings. It therefore upheld the appeal and set aside the contested decision on the grounds of illegality due to violation of procedural provisions.