A Turkish national member of the Kurdish ethnic group, applied for international protection in Austria on 17 March 2023. He claimed persecution for political reasons, citing his family’s oppositional political stance, , his involvement with the pro-Kurdish party Halkların Demokratik Partisi (HDP), and his refusal to perform military service. He claimed to have been victim of threats and beating by the Turkish secret services allegedly due to him fighting for the Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG) in Syria 

On 19 April 2024, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected the application, did not grant a residence permit, issued a return decision, found deportation to Türkiye permissible and set a deadline for voluntary departure. The applicant’s appeal lodged before the Federal Administrative Court was dismissed as unfounded after holding an oral hearing. The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate credible reasons as although he alleged persecution by the Turkish secret service and political involvement with the HDP and YPG, his statements were inconsistent and lacked clarity regarding the nature and duration of his activities in Syria.   

It accepted that some family members had faced political repression, but considered this insufficient to establish a personal risk of persecution. The court further reasoned that mere sympathies for the HDP or attendance at events did not amount to grounds for asylum. Regarding military service, it held that the applicant would not face harsher punishment than other deserters due to his political views.  

The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal against this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). 

 The Supreme Administrative Court found the lower court’s reasoning contradictory. It noted that the Federal Administrative Court had acknowledged, based on the Country Information Sheet on Türkiye (18 October 2024), that Türkiye considered the YPG an arm of the PKK and therefore an enemy of the state, and that the applicant had admitted to contact and work with the YPG. The court stated that it was unclear why, in light of these findings, the lower court concluded that the applicant did not face a risk of persecution for political reasons. 

Furthermore, the court considered, contrary to the lower court’s findings on the applicant’s political activities, that even sympathy or limited involvement with the HDP could draw negative attention from Turkish authorities according to the same COI. It also found that the lower court failed to properly evaluate the interaction between the applicant’s YPG links, political sympathies, and conscientious objection to military service. 

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the Federal Administrative Court had not carried out the required overall assessment of the applicant’s individual circumstances with regard to the threat of persecution on grounds of political activities. The court found that the contested decision was insufficiently reasoned. 

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and annulled the decision of the lower court on the ground that it was unlawful due to a violation of procedural provisions.