How to separate urgent deportation, Rule 39 before the ECtHR, section 50 FPG and entry bans where Article 2 or 3 ECHR risk is alleged.
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.
When deportation is imminent, many issues are often mentioned at once: return decision, entry ban, risk in the country of return, section 50 FPG and Rule 39 before the ECtHR. In that moment, separation is more important than unstructured speed.
This article does not repeat the general topic of risk in the country of return. It explains the emergency route where irreversible harm under Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR is alleged and an interim measure by the ECtHR may be considered.
Rule 39 does not replace domestic steps. It is relevant only in exceptional situations of imminent serious harm and must be coordinated with available Austrian remedies.
The assessment shows whether ECtHR interim measures, section 50 FPG or domestic procedure should be sorted first.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
In urgent deportation situations, risk, enforcement and entry ban must be separated. Not every urgent case is automatically a Rule 39 case.
Rule 39 of the ECtHR is designed for exceptional situations where irreversible harm is threatened, especially in connection with Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR.
Concrete, current and evidenced facts are required. General fear is not enough.
Section 50 FPG concerns deportation bans, including serious risk in the country of return. This assessment must be separated from the ECtHR interim-measure route.
The article on risk under Article 3 ECHR explains the material layer.
An entry ban regulates re-entry after departure. Deportation concerns enforcement of the return decision. The issues may be linked, but must be assessed separately.
The focus page on residence ban and return decision places the terms in context.
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court concerns interim measures in exceptional situations. In practice, it mainly concerns imminent irreversible harm under Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR.
It is not an additional ordinary remedy against an entry ban. It does not replace an appeal or applications in Austrian proceedings.
In urgent enforcement situations, deadlines, jurisdiction and domestic steps must therefore be assessed at the same time, but separately.
Section 50 FPG governs when deportation may be impermissible. Article 3 ECHR protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. This material risk layer needs concrete evidence.
The article on the deportation ban under section 50 FPG explains the core. Rule 39 can only build on a reliable risk account.
Individual reasons, current documents and a clear link between the person and the risk are required. General reports help only where they support the individual case.
Depending on the situation, appeals, applications, evidence submissions or other procedural steps may be relevant in Austria. The ECtHR is not the first fact-finding body for every immigration question.
Anyone considering Rule 39 should also document which domestic routes were used or why they are not sufficient in the acute situation.
The article on deportation and return decisions shows why enforcement and the underlying decision must be kept apart.
Even if deportation is temporarily stopped, the entry ban is not automatically removed. Duration, proportionality and later lifting remain separate issues.
Conversely, an entry ban may be unlawful or disproportionate without creating a Rule 39 case. The urgency may then lie in domestic proceedings, not necessarily in Strasbourg.
After the acute phase, the decisions, deadlines and possible applications should therefore be reviewed in an ordered way.
Practice point: Rule 39 is no substitute for a well ordered file. Enforcement dates, risk evidence and domestic steps must be understandable on a few pages.
Newsletter: Updates on entry bans, residence issues and immigration deadlines can be followed through the Brandauer newsletter.
No. Rule 39 concerns interim measures in urgent risk situations. The entry ban itself remains a separate issue.
Article 3 ECHR matters where torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of return is alleged. The risk must be concrete and current.
That depends on the situation. Domestic steps should not be skipped too quickly. In urgent cases, both levels must be assessed structurally.
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