The nationalization of asylum seekers’ care raises questions at the Constitutional Court (VfGH). It has decided to check the constitutionality of provisions in the law for the Federal Care Agency (BBU-G) and in the procedural law of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA-VG). Central is the proximity of the BBU to the Ministry of the Interior and the independence of the advice and support.
In a broadcast on Friday, it was emphasized that according to the BFA-VG, asylum seekers for proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) must be provided ex officio with a free legal adviser. Its task is to support the person concerned in submitting a complaint to the BVwG. At the request of the person to be advised, the adviser is also responsible for representation in the case.
BBU 100% federally owned
Since June 2019, the Federal Agency for Care and Support Services (BBU), which is 100 percent owned by the federal government, has been tasked with providing this legal advice. The Constitutional Court points out that the directorate is appointed by the Ministry of the Interior and the head of the legal advice department by the Ministry of Justice. Previously, associations could also conduct such consultations. The reorganization was initiated under the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition.
Various complaints from asylum seekers
Following several complaints by asylum seekers against the BVwG’s findings, the Constitutional Court was concerned whether the provisions on the implementation of legal advice and representation by the BBU meet constitutional requirements. The complaints in the initial procedure were submitted by persons who were represented in the procedure by the BBU. In one of these cases, the BBU did not forward a decision of the BVwG that had already been served to the asylum seeker it represented, thus missing an appeal period for the latter, as the Constitutional Court explained in the notice.
“Significant influence”, especially from the Ministry of the Interior in the picture
Concerns are expressed, among other things, about the rule of law and the fundamental right to “effective judicial protection”. Legal advisers are independent with regard to their duties, must perform them independently and are bound by a duty of confidentiality in the performance of their duties. However: “The Constitutional Court preliminarily assumes that the current construction does not have the required minimum level of effective effectiveness for those seeking legal protection due to the considerable influence of the Federal Minister of the Interior.”
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
