ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
You are here
Home ›Portugal: Administrative Litigation Section of the Central Administrative Court, 23/05/2019, proc. nº 2039/18.0BELSB
2
3
7
17
19
23
24
26
84 da Lei 27/2008
Art. 1
10
94
140 Procedural Code for Administrative Courts
Art. 147
466
552
607
615
635
639
640
662 Procedural Civil Code
Art. 108 Procedural Tributary Code


The lower Court could not have carried out a more critical analysis, especially since there was no evidence, since the applicant’s entire claim was based on personal reasons.
The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, applied for international protection to the Portuguese State.
The Administrative Court of Lisboa dismissed the administrative action filed by the applicant.
The Court considered the appeal unfounded for several reasons, pronouncing the inadmissibility of the application for international protection.
The Court noted that the Administrative Court of Lisboa did not incur any omission that could justify its decision's nullity.
The Court stated that, in the case of an application for international protection, it is imperative to know whether its grounds are in the rules governing that legal institute. However, there was no connection between the reasons underlying the request and the conditions that make up the framework for international protection purposes.
The Court declared that it could not see to what extent the original Court could have carried out a more critical analysis, and on what evidence, since the applicant’s entire claim was based on personal reasons. The applicant did not refer to a fear of returning to the Congo due to a situation of systematic human rights violations.
About the applicant’s claim that the original decision lacks the essential formality of article 17 from the Portuguese Asylum Law, the Court dismissed it based on two arguments. First, the argument was never raised in the first instance, meaning it could not be raised in the appeal. Secondly, because Article 17 is only applicable to international protection applicants whose application has already been made in national territory, which was not the case since the applicant made her request at the Border Post. Therefore, the administrative authority did not neglect any essential formalities.
The Court concluded that the decision was correctly and legally rendered and did not suffer from any defect that would invalidate it, as well as the sentence that confirmed it, which must be maintained with all its legal consequences.
Appeal denied.
This summary was written by Larissa Beckman, LLM stuent at Queen Mary University London.
Domestic Case Law cited
- Admin Court South, 24-01-2019, Proc. nº 1434/18.BELSB
- Admin Court South, 02-06-2016, Proc. n. º 13273/16
- Admin Court South, 26-03-2015, Proc. nº 11691/14
- Admin Court South, 22/09/2016, Proc. nº 13594/16
- Admin Court North, 28-01-2016, Proc. n. º 00479/09.5BEPRT
- Admin Court North, 28-01-2016, Proc. n. º 00831/06.8BEPEN
- Admin Court North, 25-05-2016, Proc. n. º 00724/04.3BEVIS