ECtHR releases decision in A.L. v. Austria (Application no. 7788/11) [Articles 3, 13 ECHR]

Date: 
Friday, October 4, 2013

The applicant, A.L., is a Togolese national who was born in 1988 and currently lives in Salzburg (Austria). He arrived at Vienna airport in November 2008 and immediately claimed asylum. His application was dismissed in May 2010 and his expulsion ordered. A member of the opposition political party in Togo (Union des Forces de Changement), he alleges that, if returned to Togo, he would be at risk of persecution and even death. In particular, he claims that he was threatened by soldiers in Togo in August 2008 during protests organized in a camp for flood victims because of an unequal distribution of relief items. He further complains that another Togolese man had cited similar reasons for fleeing Togo but he had been granted asylum in 2009. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.

The Court concluded that:

Article 3:
In light of the widely acknowledged as peaceful presidential elections in March 2010 and the participation of the (remaining) UFC in the current cabinet, the Court finds that even if the threat uttered by the soldiers in summer 2008 had carried sincere weight as a sign of a real and individual risk of persecution at the time, there is no indication that this is still the case. The Court acknowledged that the reports consulted do not rule out the occurrences of human rights violations such as arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and a lack of respect for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly on the part of the Togolese government. However, in the light of the material before it, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the applicant would suffer a real and individual risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Togo. Accordingly, the applicant’s expulsion to Togo would not violate Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 13:
The applicant had access to two levels of jurisdiction, which examined his arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention on its merits and conducted a thorough assessment of whether there existed substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 upon expulsion of the applicant to Togo (see, mutatis mutandis, Diallo v. the Czech Republic, no. 20493/07, § 74, 23 June 2011). The applicant had further access to the Constitutional Court, which, although it could not re-examine the assessment of evidence by the Federal Asylum Office and/or the Asylum Court, could still examine an alleged breach of a constitutional right. In this context, the Court observed that as the Convention has the status of a constitutional law in Austria, the applicant would have been able to rely on the Convention guarantees even in proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The Court found that the applicant had access to sufficiently effective remedies in relation to his claims under Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the Court concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

As to Rule 39 Interim Measures:
The Court decided to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to expel the applicant until such time as the judgment becomes final or until further order.

For the full text of the judgment please visit: ECtHR: A.L. v. Austria (Application No. 7788/11)


This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update supported by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Funding Programme and distributed by email. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE, the IRC or its partners.

                                                     

 

Keywords: 
Manifestly unfounded application
Real risk
Individual threat
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Effective remedy (right to)
Tags: 
ECtHR
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia