What follows an oral BVwG decision, when the written copy must be requested within two weeks and how to examine the next remedy.
Mag. Mirela Saric
Attorney at law · German and BCS
Mirela Saric assists clients in immigration matters with a clear structure: review the decision, secure deadlines, define the strategy and act quickly. She advises in German and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.
If the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) pronounces its decision orally, the person concerned should secure the minutes and the notice about the written-copy period immediately. Under Section 29 VwGVG, a written copy of the judgment may be requested within two weeks after the minutes are handed over or served.
This period concerns the step after the pronouncement. It is separate from the periods for a revision to the Administrative Court (VwGH) or a complaint to the Constitutional Court (VfGH). Anyone considering a further remedy should therefore secure the request for the written copy instead of waiting without action for full reasons.
This article explains the sequence after an oral BVwG decision concerning a return decision or entry ban. The exact minutes, the way they were handed over or served and the remedies notice remain decisive.
Answer one question. The first orientation shows which document and time-limit check comes first.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The document issued after the pronouncement determines which next step must be secured immediately.
Read the notice in the minutes and record the day on which they were handed over or served. If a copy is needed to examine a revision to the Administrative Court or a complaint to the Constitutional Court, the request must reach the BVwG within that period.
Keep all documents from the hearing and check whether minutes were handed over or served. A personal recollection of the result does not replace that document. If service is unclear, clarify the period immediately.
Compare the operative part, reasons and remedies notice with the result announced at the hearing. The Administrative Court and Constitutional Court have different requirements. The service date of the written copy must be reliable.
The BVwG may pronounce a judgment after an oral hearing. The pronouncement announces the result. For the next legal steps, it also matters which minutes are handed over or served and which notices they contain.
Section 29 VwGVG provides that the minutes must indicate that a written copy of the judgment can be requested within two weeks. The result of the hearing and the later written copy should therefore be documented as separate parts of the case file.
The two-week period starts with the handover or service of the minutes. The hearing date is therefore not automatically the first day of the period. Record the actual access date and keep proof of service or handover.
The request must reach the BVwG within the period. It should clearly identify the proceedings and the orally pronounced decision. The file number, name, date of the pronouncement and a clear request for a written copy help the court allocate it. The specific submission method and the notice in the minutes must be followed.
Securing the written copy does not replace examining the remedy. Anyone considering a revision to the VwGH or a complaint to the VfGH must then check the separate requirements and periods for that remedy.
If no copy is requested in time and there is no other relevant waiver, the court may issue the decision in shortened form. Under the statutory notice, that shortened version contains the operative part and the notice that the copy was waived or not requested.
A shortened version must be distinguished from a complete written copy containing the reasons. Anyone who wants the decision assessed for a further remedy should therefore not confuse the request for a written copy with the later revision or Constitutional Court complaint.
The complete written copy makes it possible to examine the operative part, findings, assessment of evidence and legal reasoning. It does not automatically mean that a revision or complaint is admissible. The VwGH and VfGH have different functions and admissibility requirements.
For a revision, it must be examined in particular whether a question of fundamental significance exists and whether an ordinary or extraordinary revision is available. A complaint to the VfGH has its own constitutional requirements. The article on a revision to the VwGH after an entry ban and the overview of a VfGH complaint after a BVwG decision address these routes separately.
The service date of the written copy, the remedies notice and the complete procedural file should therefore be examined together. A general statement about prospects cannot replace a time-limit check in the individual case.
Keep the summons, minutes, proof of their handover or service, the hearing record, earlier decisions and the complete decision file. Also record whether a waiver of a remedy was declared and what the remedies notice says.
The statutory basis for the request is Section 29 VwGVG in the Austrian Legal Information System. The Federal Administrative Court information on decisions also explains the shortened copy and the two-week period. Neither source replaces an examination of the individual minutes.
Important: The two-week period for requesting a written copy runs from the handover or service of the minutes. It is separate from later periods for the VwGH and VfGH. If service is unclear or the period is close to expiring, the documents should be assessed immediately.
Under Section 29 VwGVG, the period is linked to the handover or service of the minutes. The hearing date is therefore not automatically the first day. The actual access date must be documented.
If a complete copy is needed to examine a further remedy, the request should clearly be made within the two-week period stated in the minutes. The individual document determines the content and submission method.
If the copy is not requested in time and there is no relevant waiver, the judgment may be issued in shortened form. The shortened version contains the operative part and the statutory notice about the missing request or waiver.
No. The request secures the written decision. Whether a revision to the VwGH is admissible and appropriate must then be assessed from the copy, the remedies notice and the statutory requirements.
A VfGH complaint is available only if its constitutional requirements are met. After an oral pronouncement, the written-copy issue should first be secured within the two-week period. The VfGH period and formal requirements must then be checked separately.
Admissibility, legal questions and the next step after the BVwG decision.
Constitutional review after the BVwG decision.
Distinguishing the complaint against the BFA decision from later remedies.
In immigration law, deadlines and the right argumentation decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000