Author
General (scope, criteria, time limits)
The admissibility procedure starts upon registration of the application with the first interrogation (Erstbefragung) of the asylum applicant by the public security officer, who has to submit a report to the branch office of the BFA. The caseworker of the BFA in charge of the case informs the police about the next steps of the admissibility procedure within 24 hours on average. If the applicant is admitted to the regular procedure, they are ordered to travel to the initial reception centre (EAST) or transferred there by the police.[1] There are three EAST which are responsible for the admissibility procedure: one is located in Traiskirchen near Vienna, one in Thalham in Upper Austria and one at the Airport Vienna Schwechat. If the asylum applicant is not admitted to the regular procedure, they stay in the Federal reception system and are not being allocated to one of the provinces. The person has then only the right to stay in the district where the Federal reception centre is located.
All asylum applicants have to undergo the admissibility procedure, except children born in Austria whose parents have received protection status in the country or whose application is admitted to the regular procedure. Their applications are admitted immediately to the regular procedure.[2]
An application may be rejected as inadmissible for the following reasons:
- The person comes from a safe third country;[3]
- The person enjoys asylum in an EEA country or Switzerland;[4]
- Another country is responsible for the application under the Dublin III Regulation;[5]
- The person files a subsequent application and “no change significant to the decision has occurred in the material facts”.[6]
Asylum applicants receive a green “procedure card” within 3 days, which is an indication that their stay in Austria is tolerated. This card is replaced by a “white card” as soon as the application is admitted to the regular procedure.
Within 20 days after the application for international protection has been lodged, the BFA must admit the asylum applicant to the in-merit procedure or notify them formally by procedural order about the intention to issue an inadmissibility decision on the ground that another state is considered responsible for the examination of the asylum claim; or that it intends to revoke the suspensive effect of a subsequent application. If the BFA does not notify the asylum applicant of its intention to issue an inadmissibility decision within 20 days, the application is thus admitted to the regular procedure. This time limit does not apply if consultations with another state on the application of the Dublin III Regulation take place.[7]
The 20-day time limit shall not apply if the BFA intends to reject the application for international protection and the applicant does not cooperate during the asylum procedure. The procedure is deemed no longer relevant, especially if the asylum applicant absconded from the procedure.[8] The duty of asylum applicants to cooperate includes the duty to provide the BFA with information and evidence about their identity and reasons for applying for international protection, to be present at hearings and personal interviews as well as to inform the authorities about their address. If the asylum applicant is unable to cooperate during the procedure for reasons relating to their person (e.g. illness, postponing the interview due to duty to comply with summons etc.), the 20-day time limit shall be suspended.[9]
If the BFA has ordered an age assessment, the 20-day time limit also does not apply.[10]
As a result of the admissibility procedure, the application may either be admitted to the regular procedure, dismissed on the merits, or asylum or subsidiary protection status may be granted. The granting of a status or the dismissal of the application in the admissibility procedure replaces the admissibility decision.[11] An admissible application shall nevertheless be rejected if facts justifying such a rejection decision become known after the application was admitted.[12] In practice, this provision is applied in Dublin cases without the precondition that the facts justifying admissibility were not known before.[13]
The information provided by the Ministry of Interior did not include the number of inadmissibility decisions issued in 2019.[14] However, the admissibility procedure lasted for approximatively five days in 2018. This did not significantly change in 2019. Unfortunately, the Ministry has not provided any updated information on the duration of admissiblity procedures since. It should be noted that, especially in the context of family proceedings, the admission often already takes place on the day of the application, which significantly reduces the calculation of the average duration.[15] It should be further noted that, during the admission procedure, asylum applicants are given basic care in federal care facilities. In 2025 the average time of a person’s accommodation in federal basic care was 287 days (2024: 207 days), compared to 977 days in province basic care (2024: 890 days).[16]
Personal interview
A personal interview is required by law. The asylum applicant is interrogated by law enforcement officials at the registration stage of the application for international protection and a second time by officials of the BFA during the admissibility procedure at the initial reception centre. The police are not allowed to ask detailed questions on the merits of the application such as the specific reasons for fleeing the country of origin or residence. There is a clear division of tasks between the police – which has the duty to assess the identity, personal data and the travel route of the applicant – and the officials of the BFA for assessing the facts on which the application is based. In practice, this sometimes leads to problems: notably, the last question in the police’s questionnaire always concerns the reason why the person had to flee and, in most cases, the applicants are told to give a short answer only and more details in a later interview. As a result, the reasons for fleeing the country of origin may be found credible to not be credible at the interview stage before the officials of the BFA if the asylum applicant has based the application for international protection on other reasons than those stated immediately upon arrival at the police stage. There is jurisprudence by the High Administrative Court that the evidence gathered in the initial interview at the police shall not be used in an ”unreflective manner” by the authorities and the Court as the initial interview does not focus on the reasons why the person is seeking international protection.[17]
In this regard, Article 19(4) AsylG explicitly foresees that, in the admission procedure, the asylum applicant shall also be informed that their own statements will be accorded particular attention, meaning that they should be aware of the consequences of false testimonies.
The law allows for an exception from the personal interview in case the asylum applicant has absconded from the procedure while being accommodated in the initial reception centre. If the facts relevant to a decision on an asylum claim are established, the fact that the asylum applicant has not been interviewed yet by the BFA or by the BVwG shall not preclude the rendering of a decision. In practice this exception is not applied very often, however. The BFA files most of these cases as “discontinued”, which means that upon request by the asylum applicants the procedure will be reopened. An exception may apply in a subsequent asylum application that was submitted within two days before the execution of an expulsion order.[18] An interview during the admission procedure may be dispensed with if the procedure is admitted.
Appeal
For the admissibility procedure, the appeal stages are the same as in the regular procedure. The time limits within which an appeal against the BFA’s inadmissibility decision must be lodged is two weeks and the appeal has in general no suspensive effect, except when decided otherwise by the BVwG.[19]
As a first step, the BVwG decides within one week after receiving the appeal whether the appeal will have suspensive effect during the continuing appeal procedure. If the BVwG does not grant a suspensive effect to the appeal or does not admit the appeal after seven days, the asylum applicant can be transferred to the responsible Member State, the safe third country or their country of origin in case of a subsequent application.
If the application is rejected on the merits in the admissibility procedure and the second instance grants suspensive effect after the appeal was brought in, the granting of suspensive effect also means that the application has been admitted in Austria.[20]
Appeals against a decision rejecting the asylum application as inadmissible do not have suspensive effect unless this is granted by the BVwG.[21] The reasons for not granting suspensive effect to the appeal in inadmissible cases correspond to grounds for declaring claims manifestly unfounded, as mentioned in Regular Procedure: Appeal.
The appointed legal adviser is not obliged to help the asylum applicant to draft the complaint, despite the fact that it must be written in German, and the requested qualification for legal advisers is also not sufficient.
Legal assistance
The BBU GmbH as legal adviser is automatically appointed by the BFA in case it intends to reject the application in the framework of the admissibility procedure and if an interview is to be conducted within 72 hours of handing over a procedural order of its intention to reject the application in the admissibility procedure. Legal advice should be provided at least 24 hours before the second interview, the one with the BFA, during which the asylum applicant is given the opportunity to be heard. If the interview is conducted within 72 hours, presence of legal advisers during the interview is mandatory unless the applicant dismisses the advisor explicitly. If the interview is conducted more than 72 hours after, the BBU will not even be informed of the case until a negative decision is issued.
Free legal advice is foreseen for subsequent asylum applications under the same conditions (interview within 72 hours) as well, including at appeal stage.[22] Most of the cases that are regarded as inadmissible are Dublin cases (see Dublin: Legal Assistance) and Safe Third Country cases.
Since January 2021, legal assistance has been provided by the new Federal Agency, the BBU GmbH (see Regular procedure: Legal assistance).
Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of protection in another Member State
There is no general suspension of returns of beneficiaries of protection to any EU member state. In practice, there are mainly cases of Afghan and Syrian nationals with a protection status in either Greece or Bulgaria.
Rejections for existing protection in another EU state are also issued regularly by the BFA concerning countries such as Greece or Hungary.
Hungary: In the case of a Syrian national who obtained subsidiary protection in Hungary in 2015 and applied for asylum in Austria in 2020, the BVwG dismissed the applicant’s appeal.[23] Although the applicant argued that he had no access to state support, had to live on the street, and was assaulted, the Court concluded that there were support options provided by the state and NGOs and that there was no real risk of a violation of Article 3 ECHR. In a later judgment of January 2025, the BVwG again dismissed a complaint following a rejection under Section 4a AsylG in connection with Hungary, concerning a homosexual applicant with mental health issues who had spent over six years in Hungary;[24] the Court found no real risk of an Article 3 ECHR violation. The BVwG had previously accepted an appeal by an Afghan family in 2017 who held subsidiary protection in Hungary, emphasising the need to clarify whether the situation of beneficiaries of protection in Hungary raises a risk of an Article 3 ECHR breach.[25]
Greece: There is no general suspension of transfers of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) to Greece. Applications lodged in Austria by persons recognised in Greece have risen since 2020. In June 2021, the Constitutional Court (VfGH) issued a leading plenary decision requiring a thorough, individualised assessment before returning BIPs to Greece due to inadequate reception conditions.[26] Referring to the AIDA country report on Greece, the Constitutional Court considered that the applicant may face a risk of violation of Art 3 ECHR violation and ordered further examinations on the access to food, shelter and sanitary facilities. The BVwG subsequently revisited several first‑instance decisions.[27]
Strategic litigation has since been pursued through the “Tetraa” project, conducted jointly by asylkoordination, Diakonie, and lawyers Christian Schmaus and Ronald Frühwirth, focusing on BIPs recognised in Greece who apply in Austria due to dire living conditions and involving close case-by-case work and communication with Greek authorities.[28] Nonetheless, at least one person with subsidiary protection was deported to Greece in 2022.[29] In 2023, the VfGH again upheld appeals owing to insufficient investigations into access to basic care,[30] including in the case of a pregnant recognised refugee; it rejected the BVwG’s view that a decision was merely a “hypothetical return.”[31]
In February 2025, however, the VfGH allowed transfers, finding conditions had improved – a view criticised by stakeholders for lacking clear evidence – and the VwGH followed suit. More recent rulings show differentiation by vulnerability and evidence: in June 2025 the VfGH quashed a Section 4a AsylG rejection concerning a vulnerable family (child born with a single kidney) for failing to assess medical care in Greece.[32] By contrast, on 25 June 2025[33] and on 4 July 2025,[34] the VwGH dismissed revisions in non‑vulnerable cases, endorsing BVwG decisions grounded in up‑to‑date country information that related to access to housing and the labour market; the HELIOS programme was not decisive, and a comprehensive Article 8 ECHR balancing was conducted.
In early March 2026 the Constitutional Court quashed a BVwG decision concerning a 77‑year‑old, mentally and physically impaired woman who would be alone upon removal.[35] Citing Article 20(3) of the Qualification Directive and its prior case law, the Court found the BVwG had inadequately assessed whether Greece could secure her basic subsistence and held that generic references to “own initiative” and NGO support were insufficient without specifying what efforts are realistically expectable from a person in her situation.
In two rulings of 17 March 2026, the High Administrative Court, after a hearing on 27 January 2026, reaffirmed returns to Greece.[36] Citing the EU principle of mutual trust and the European Commission’s April 2025 view that mainland Greece no longer shows systemic weaknesses, it found that while reports note administrative obstacles, they do not establish a general risk of extreme material need for recognised refugees; this also applied to the Afghan families concerned, despite their vulnerability. The revisions were dismissed. These rulings drew criticism among NGOs and legal aid providers, who, based on current country reports, consider the Court’s assessment unconvincing.
Bulgaria: Austrian jurisprudence also addresses BIPs recognised in Bulgaria who lodge new applications in Austria. In 2016, a Syrian mother of three gave birth after arriving in Bulgaria, where she suffered from prenatal depression; she was granted subsidiary protection in Bulgaria shortly after moving to Austria. Although the Bulgarian authorities denied responsibility under Dublin, they were prepared to take back the family under the readmission agreement. The BVwG found removal to Bulgaria impermissible because the children suffered from PTSD – triggered, inter alia, by experiences during detention in Bulgaria in late September 2015 – and because of the close family ties with relatives living in Austria. [37] In 2023, the BVwG granted suspensive effect in several Bulgaria-related cases and upheld appeals due to inadequate first-instance investigations into living conditions, [38] but in 2024 the trend shifted and many negative decisions were issued, allowing transfers of BIPs to Bulgaria to proceed. [39]
In 2025, the High Administrative Court emphasised the importance of procedural safeguards in a vulnerability-sensitive case, quashing a rejection under Section 4a AsylG involving a 71-year-old woman with a heart condition who disputed the availability of treatment in Bulgaria and whose daughter lives in Austria, and underscoring the duty to hold a hearing.[40]
[1] Article 29(1) AsylG.
[2] Article 17(3) AsylG.
[3] Article 4(1) AsylG.
[4] Article 4a(1) AsylG.
[5] Article 5(1) AsylG.
[6] Article 12a(2)(2) AsylG.
[7] Article 28(2) AsylG.
[8] Article 28(2) AsylG.
[9] Article 28(2) AsylG.
[10] Article 28 (2) AsylG in connection with Article 29 (6) AsylG.
[11] Article 28(2) AsylG.
[12] Article 28(1) AsylG.
[13] VwGH, Decision Ra 2006/20/0624, 25 November 2008.
[14] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 18 February 2020.
[15] Answer to parliamentarian request, No 3235/AB-BR/2018, 31 July 2018.
[16] Ministry of Justice, Answer to parliamentary request 630/AB XXVIII. GP, 19 May 2025, available in German here; Ministry of Justice, Answer to parliamentary request 4335/AB XXVIII. GP, 02 April 2026, available in German here.
[17] VwGH,14.6.2017, Ra 2017/18/0001.
[18] Article 19(1) AsylG.
[19] Article 16 (2) BFA-VG.
[20] Article 17 BFA-VG
[21] Article 16(2) BFA-VG.
[22] Article 52(1) BFA-VG.
[23] BVwGH, Decision W235 2238204-1/10E, 26 April 2021, available in German here.
[24] BVwGH, Decision W144 2305898-1, 21 January 2025, available in German here.
[25] BVwG, Decision W205 2180181-1, 21 December 2017, available in German here.
[26] Austrian Constitutional Court, Decision E599/2021, 25 June 2021, available in German here.
[27] BVwG, Decisions W235 2244837-1/8E, 21 September 2021, available in German here and W144 2244839-1/8E, 14 September 2021, available in German here.
[28] Asylkoordination österreich, TETRAA, available in German here.
[29] Decision BFA, IFA 1312763810, 9 November 2022.
[30] VfGH, Decision E 818/2023-11, 13 June 2023.
[31] VfGH, Decision E 1490/2023-14, 13 December 2023, available in German here.
[32] VfGH, Decision VfGH E 90/2025, 18 June 2025, available in German here.
[33] VwGH, Decision Ra 2024/14/0896‑10, 25 June 2025, available in German here.
[34] VwGH, Decision Ra 2025/19/0133‑8, 04 July 2025, available in German here.
[35] VfGH, Decision E 3439/2025, 3 March 2026, available in German here.
[36] VwGH, Decision Ra 2025/18/0094–0098 and Ra 2025/18/0368–0369, 3 March 2026, available in German here.
[37] BVwG, Decision W192 2131676, 8 September 2016.
[38] BVwG, Decision W232 2287167, 24 February 2024.
[39] See as an example: BVwG W144 2300452-1, 11. October 2024, available in German here.
[40] VwGH, Decision Ra 2024/18/0173-14, 29.01.2025, available in German here.