3. Refugee Status Determination Process: The Legal Framework The 2005 Federal Act Concerning the Granting of Asylum provides asylum to those individuals who “in the country of origin [would] be at risk of persecution as defined in article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.”398 The asylum process is divided into two stages: (1) determining the admissibility of the application; and (2) evaluating the merits of the application.399 In the first stage of the proceedings (“Zulassungsverfahren”), the Aliens and Asylum Office has to determine within 20 days whether the application is inadmissible under the Dublin Regulation or because the applicant comes from a safe third country or an EU member state. This stage of proceedings is conducted at the reception center.400 Further information regarding the asylum procedure is available in ECRE/AIDA’s National Country Report on Austria.401 4. Refugee Status Determination: Article 1D Article 1D is incorporated into the 2005 Asylum Act, which states: “An alien shall be rendered ineligible for asylum status if and for as long as he enjoys protection pursuant to art. 1, section D, of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.”402 Four 2013 cases in Austria’s Constitutional Court (“Verfassungsgerichtshof”)403 annulled the decisions appealed arguing that they had erroneously assessed the cases of Palestinian asylum seekers based on Article 1A(2) criteria. The Court emphasized that the “ipso facto” language of Article 1D, in accordance with the El Kott decision, means that the Asylum Court, when assessing cases falling under Article 1D, must consider whether the applicant has left the UNRWA protection area for reasons beyond the applicant’s control and independent of his or her volition, which includes, but is not limited to, the well-founded fear of persecution criteria of Article 1A(2). Thus, in theory, a well-founded fear of persecution should not have to be established. However, it remains unclear how Austria’s Asylum Court assesses cases falling under Article 1D, since the Constitutional Court has not provided specific guidelines on that matter. 398 State of Austria, “2005 Asylum Act,” Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 3(1). European Agency for Fundamental Rights, Country Factsheet Austria, September 2010, 4, http:// fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1022-asylum_factsheet_Austria_en.pdf. 400 Information provided by Dr. Phillip Czech. 401 Anny Knapp, National Country Report: Austria (ECRE/AIDA, May 2014), http://www.asylumineurope. org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_-_austria_second_update_uploaded_1.pdf. 402 State of Austria, “2005 Asylum Act,” Chapter 2, Section 3, Article 6(1). 403 Verfassungsgerichtshof (VfGH) [Constitutional Court of Austria], “Case U674/2012,” June 29, 2013, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20130629_1 2U00674_00; Verfassungsgerichtshof (VfGH) [Constitutional Court of Austria], “Case U706/2012,” June 29, 2013, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_ 20130629_12U00706_00; Verfassungsgerichtshof (VfGH) [Constitutional Court of Austria], “Case U1053/2012,” September 12, 2013, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Doku mentnummer=JFT_20130912_12U01053_00; Verfassungsgerichtshof (VfGH) [Constitutional Court of Austria], “Case U2346/2012,” September 12, 2013, http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Ab frage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20130912_12U02346_00. 399 Survey of Protection at the National Level 83