3.5.1. Access to the appeals procedure 

The right to access the appeals procedure in asylum cases was changed in several EU+ countries which amended the time limits to challenge first instance decisions, additional rights were provided to applicants prior to lodging an appeal and changes were introduced to the remedies that should be followed by applicants. Courts also interpreted the right to access a fair appeal as a remedy for procedural failures at the administrative stage.

In Czechia, Act No 173/2023 amended Section 32 of the Asylum Act to make some minor modifications to the time limits to lodge an appeal. The provision notes that: an appeal may be lodged within 15 days against a decision rejecting an application as manifestly unfounded, a decision on the suspension of proceedings and when the applicant is detained or not allowed to enter the territory; 1 month in all other cases; and 2 months when instructions on how to appeal were missing, incomplete or incorrect.454  

In Switzerland, the Federal Council repealed the COVID-19 ordinance with effect from 15 December 2023. The cancellation of this ordinance meant that the time limit in the accelerated procedure resumed to 7 working days (instead of 30 days during the pandemic) for an appeal against a decision and requests for interim rulings must be submitted again within 5 days (instead of 10 days).455  

Additional rights were provided to applicants in Italy, where Law No 50/2023 provided that, before filing an appeal, lawyers may access the video recording of the applicant’s hearing before the Territorial Commission.456  

Legislative changes were introduced in May 2023 in Romania for first instance decisions, which impacted the appeal proceedings to be followed by applicants. The legislative changes provide that a return decision is issued at the same time with a decision rejecting the request for international protection.457 The National Council for Refugees (CNRR) reported that applicants must follow two simultaneous judicial proceedings, which poses practical challenges for effective access to appeals procedures; the first appeal to be accessed is against the negative decision, for which the court of first instance is competent, and the second, against the return decision, for which the Court of Appeal is competent, which is not confidential and is subject to a stamp fee. CNRR noted that this was a complex situation to navigate for people who already encounter difficulties due to their lack of legal training and legal assistance, socio-cultural backgrounds and language barriers.458  

In addition, CNRR noted that the legislative change overburdens the Courts of Appeal with additional cases, as some courts suspend the procedure until there is a final decision on the asylum request, which leads to a longer procedure than before the amendments and with cases where a person who receives a form of protection may also receive a final return decision.459 CNRR highlighted that this situation does not respect the European Commission Recommendation (EU)2023/682 of 16 March 2023, which states that Member States should provide the possibility to lodge an appeal against the negative decision on international protection and the return decision at the same time before the same court or tribunal, or for the possibility to appeal both decisions within the same timeframe.460  

In Ireland, the High Court granted certiorari in a case where the International Protection Office erred by claiming that the applicant had not submitted the required documentation. The court ruled that the availability of a fair appeal, in which documents could be translated and made available to the judge, does not remedy the absence of a fair first instance decision.