Refugee Protection Regimes: AUSTRIA Country Report
Ivan Josipovic, Ursula Reeger | Austrian Academy of Sciences (OEAW)
This report deals with the protection of refugees in Austria between 2011 and 2018 by drawing (1) from an analysis of the legal framework and its implementation and (2) by building on extensive field research conducted under the framework of the RESPOND project. It shows that the so-called “refugee crisis” of 2015 represents a crucial turning point in asylum policy. While refugee protection remains intact as a constitutionally secured right, the Austrian government introduced a number of legal restrictions, including procedural hurdles, emergency provisions allowing for restricted access to federal territory and thus the asylum procedure, as well as restrictions for persons who obtain protection status. These reforms occurred at a time when the Common European Asylum System displayed serious deficiencies.
Professionals in the field of asylum that we have interviewed for this project, largely point to the need for an alternative to the Dublin regime, for example in the form of solidary distribution mechanisms as well as a stronger harmonization of national asylum procedures within the European Union. At the national level, an implementation gap became evident in relation to the quality of first instance decisions by the Immigration Office as well as a in the context of rejected asylum seekers and effectively conducted returns.
Among asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, a central topic is the long waiting time connected to the asylum procedure, particularly in combination with a ban on taking up formal employment. Both asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection expressed a sense of incomprehension regarding legal criteria for asylum decisions. From a practical stance, this means a lack of transparency regarding certain procedural steps. From a normative stance, it implies that particularly persons who have spent several years in Austria, making great integration efforts, developed frustration and anger about receiving a negative first instance decision.
Please find the all dataset by clicking on one of the links below: