A Syrian national requested international protection in Syria on 6 October 2022 under the Asylum Act 2005 (AsylG 2005). The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) did not decide on the applicant’s application for international protection within 6 months. On 29 October 2024, the applicant lodged by written submission a default complaint (concerning the excessive length of the asylum procedure) before the Federal Administrative Court on the ground that the BFA had violated its duty to issue a decision. On 12 August 2025, the Federal Administrative Court upheld the complaint and, pursuant to Section 28(7) of the VwGVG, instructed the BFA to issue the omitted decision within 8 weeks, ‘on the basis of the legal opinion of the Federal Administrative Court as laid down in the present decision’. An extraordinary appeal on points of law was lodged against that decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). During the proceedings the BFA informed the SAC that, by decision of 1 October 2025, it had rejected the applicant’s application for international protection, had issued a return decision and had adopted further rulings.

The SAC recalled its settled case-law on the requirements for issuing a partial decision under Section 28(7) of the VwGVG in default complaint proceedings, referring in particular to its judgments of 15 March 2016, Ra 2015/01/0208, and 30 June 2025, Ra 2025/20/0073, and made reference to their reasoning pursuant to Section 43(2) of the VwGG. According to the court, in the present case, the lower court did not comply with the guidelines of the case-law of the SAC above mentioned because it did not mention the solution of relevant legal questions in the award and also did not set it out in the reasons for the decision. In contrast, the SAC noted that the lower court, without deciding any legal questions to be resolved in the specific case, merely instructed the BFA to issue the omitted decision by setting a grace period of 8 weeks. The court held that this did not comply with the clear wording of section 28 (7) of the Administrative Court Procedure Act, namely, to prescribe to the BFA a decision on the individual (and therefore case-related) relevant legal questions.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Federal Administrative Court had acted contrary to Section 28(7) VwGVG by failing to resolve relevant legal questions in the specific case. The contested decision was therefore set aside on the ground of unlawfulness of its content pursuant to Section 42(2)(1) of the VwGG.