projects

Asylum hearing: when additional investigation is required

150002123Federal Administrative Practice (VPB)May 19, 1993Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Council rejected a complaint in an asylum and removal case. The complainant invoked Art. 16c LA and argued that the cantonal interview was manifestly incomplete and that supplementary investigation was required. The Federal Council held that additional measures are ordered only when the first hearing does not permit a sufficiently clear assessment of the facts. Since the complainant herself stated that the transcript fully recorded her asylum grounds and that she had nothing to add, no clear violation of substantive or procedural law was found.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 16c LA; conditions for supplementary investigation in asylum proceedings: additional investigative measures are ordered only where the first hearing does not permit a sufficiently clear determination of the facts. The competent authority enjoys significant discretion in assessing whether the factual record is sufficiently developed. Where the applicant expressly confirms that the interview transcript exhaustively records the asylum grounds and declares that nothing further is to be added, the refusal to take further evidence does not violate clear substantive or procedural rules.

Full text

JAAC 58.31B

Extrait d'une décision du Conseil fédéral du 19 mai 1993

Asile et renvoi. Constatation des faits. Art. 16c LA. Conditions d'une instruction supplémentaire.

Asyl und Wegweisung. Feststellung des Sachverhalts. Art. 16c AsylG. Voraussetzungen zusätzlicher Abklärungen.

Asilo e allontanamento. Accertamento dei fatti. Art. 16c LA. Condizioni di chiarimenti suppletivi.

  1. La dénonciatrice relève encore qu'une instruction supplémentaire au sens de l'art. 16c de la Loi du 5 octobre 1979 sur l'asile (LA, RS 142.31) aurait dû être menée, vu le caractère manifestement lacunaire de l'audition cantonale.

Les mesures complémentaires d'instruction prévues par l'art. 16c LA ne sont ordonnées que lorsque la première audition ne permet pas de se faire une idée suffisamment claire de l'état des faits (Message à l'appui d'un arrêté fédéral sur la procédure d'asile et d'une loi fédérale instituant un Office fédéral pour les réfugiés, FF 1990 II 599). Le pouvoir d'appréciation de l'autorité compétente est donc important. Le Conseil fédéral observe encore que la dénonciatrice a expressément reconnu au terme de l'audition cantonale que le procès-verbal relatait de manière exhaustive ses motifs d'asile et a indiqué ne rien vouloir ajouter à ses dépositions. Au regard de ce qui précède, le Conseil fédéral est d'avis qu'aucune règle claire de droit matériel ou de procédure n'a été violée.

1

Schweizerisches Bundesarchiv, Digitale Amtsdruckschriften Archives fédérales suisses, Publications officielles numérisées Archivio federale svizzero, Pubblicazioni ufficiali digitali

JAAC 58.31B - Extrait d'une décision du Conseil fédéral du 19 mai 1993

In

Verwaltungspraxis der Bundesbehörden

Dans

In

Jurisprudence des autorités administratives de la Confédération Giurisprudenza delle autorità amministrative della Confederazione

Jahr

Année

1994

Anno

Band Volume

58

Volume

Seite Page

Pagina

Ref. No 150 002 123

Das Dokument wurde durch das Schweizerische Bundesarchiv und die Bundeskanzlei konvertiert. Le document a été digitalisé par les Archives Fédérales Suisses et la Chancellerie fédérale. Il documento è stato convertito dall'Archivio federale svizzero e della Cancelleria federale.

Keywords

asylumremovalhearingevidencefact-findingsupplementary investigationdiscretion

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether additional investigative measures had to be ordered under Art. 16c LA because the cantonal hearing was allegedly incomplete.

Extracted holding

Additional investigation is ordered only if the first hearing does not allow a sufficiently clear view of the facts; here the complainant confirmed that the record fully reflected her asylum grounds and had nothing further to add.

Extracted reasoning

The authority has significant discretion under Art. 16c LA. Given the complainant's express confirmation that the transcript was exhaustive, no clear rule of substantive or procedural law was violated.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.