4.2.2. Continuing to ensure applicants’ rights and obligations at second or higher instances

4.2.2. Continuing to ensure applicants’ rights and obligations at  second or higher instances
 

Changes to legislation and practices aimed to strengthen procedural safeguards for children in appeal procedures. For example, a legislative amendment in Norway lowered the threshold for conducting hearings by the Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) in deportation cases involving children.205 Belgium introduced summons letters that explain the course of a hearing in a child-friendly manner, as recommended by the guidelines of the Council of Europe. A pilot project at the Belgian CALL tailored a courtroom to encourage interaction between a minor and the judge.206  

To improve the quality of judicial processes, several courts provided continuous professional development for judges, often with the support of the EUAA.207 In Ireland, the High Court clarified the duties of the first level of appeal, IPAT. It ruled in January 2024 that IPAT had at a minimum the duty to analyse the COI presented by the applicant and if the tribunal’s position was to reject the COI or use other COI, the tribunal needs to provide an explanation for its reasoning.208 The ECtHR ruled in a case against Poland that an appeal against a refusal of entry and a further appeal to the domestic administrative courts were not effective remedies within the meaning of the Convention because they did not have an automatic suspensive effect.209 

Civil society organisations reported on some gaps in the appeals procedure that may undermine applicants’ rights. For example, Asylex and the Swiss Refugee Council noted that the absence of an oral hearing before the second instance body in Switzerland continued to be a significant hindrance, as the appeal is exclusively conducted in writing, and only in rare cases a hearing is organised to clarify the facts.210 In addition, Asylex noted a systematic reduction of access to legal assistance before the Federal Administrative Court.211 The Refugee Council identified different obstacles to an effective appeal procedure, including the fact that the court may request, if the appeal is prima facie without merit, an advance payment of about CHF 750 for presumed costs of the appeal proceedings, under penalty of the inadmissibility of the appeal. Unaccompanied minors are exempt from the payment.212 

In recent years, issues have arisen over applicants’ right to know and access classified information.213 It was welcomed that in Malta a legal notice introduced the possibility for the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to access information in the applicant’s file relating to national security.214 The Dutch district court in Roermond referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling to clarify what information is included in the concept of ‘information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made’ within the meaning of the recast APD, Article 23(1) and whether this also includes access to information on the manner in which that information was gathered and obtained.215   

The extent of a judicial review in the context of the recast APD, Article 46(1) and (3) read in the light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 47 and the meaning of the full and ex nunc examination of an application for international protection continued to give rise to referrals for preliminary rulings. The CJEU delivered a judgment on this matter in October 2024216 and April 2025.217 The Dutch district court in Zwolle referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether the court can make its own assessment of the credibility of an asylum claim, replacing the assessment made by the determining authority.218