On Thursday 3 July, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Greek legislation requiring an asylum seeker to appear in person at the hearing to examine their appeal, and also providing for a presumption that they have abused the right of appeal in the event of non-compliance with this obligation to appear, is contrary to EU law.
According to the Court, which interpreted (Case C-610/23) the 2013 Directive on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, “less restrictive measures could be adopted, such as allowing applicants to be represented by a lawyer or other person authorised for that purpose and, in order to prove their presence in Greek territory, to appear at a police station or before another public or judicial authority close to where they are staying”.
The requirement for the applicant to appear in person also represents “an unreasonable and excessive burden on applicants [...] who are not staying in the region of Athens”.
The disproportionate nature of this legislation lies in the fact that it establishes an irrebuttable presumption that an appeal has been brought improperly, with the result that it must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded without any examination of its merits.
The Court was ruling on the case of an Iraqi national who lodged an application for international protection in 2019 in Samos, alleging that his life was in danger in his country of origin.
His application was rejected and his appeal against that decision was also dismissed by an Independent Appeals Committee.
He failed to appear in person, while national legislation establishes a presumption that such an action has been brought improperly if the claimant does not appear in person.
However, the Court ruled that “read in the light of the right to an effective remedy as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the directive precludes national legislation which, in the event of failure by an applicant for international protection to comply with a procedural obligation to appear in person before the court or tribunal having jurisdiction (...) establishes a presumption that the appeal has been improperly brought”.
The sole purpose of this obligation is to verify the presence of the person concerned on national territory and not to hear them. Even though the regulation in question may contribute to the efficiency of the system, it does not observe the principle of proportionality.
Further information: https://aeur.eu/f/hog (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)