Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Country of Decision : Germany
Court Name : DE: Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgerichte]
Date of decision : 18/02/2020
Type : Judgment
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : No 5 A 3753/17

Applicants (Syria) v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF)


DE: The Regional Administrative Court dismissed the request for a ban on return to Greece for a Syrian family with small children who had received asylum protection in Greece.

The applicants are a family with small children from Syria, who applied for asylum in Germany on 13 April 2017. According to their statements, they traveled from Sweden to Germany but according to a notification in the EURODAC system, they had come to Greece, where they received refugee protection on 25 June 2015. In their hearing with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), they stated that living conditions were very poor in Greece and there was no financial support to buy milk for the children.

By decision of 29 August 2017, BAMF rejected their asylum application as inadmissible and requested them to leave to Greece. The decision also stated that they were not to be deported to Syria. The applicants appealed and argued that access to social benefits for persons entitled to international protection is not guaranteed in Greece, so that there is a high probability of a violation of Article 3 ECHR. They also added that one of their sons was born in Germany and there was no decision on his application yet.

The court rejected the appeal. It held that it was not of the opinion that in the event of a deportation to Greece the applicants would run the risk, with a considerable probability, of being exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR. The court noted that it is not apparent that if they returned to Greece, they would find themselves in a situation of extreme material hardship. The court added that foreigners cannot in principle assert a right under the ECHR to remain in a convention state in order to receive medical, social or other help and support there. Article 3 ECHR cannot be interpreted in such a way that it obliges the convention states to grant all persons under their sovereignty the right to housing. The provision also does not contain a general obligation to support refugees financially so that they can maintain a certain standard of living. The fact that, in the event of termination of residence, the situation of the person concerned, including their life expectancy, would be significantly impaired is not sufficient to assume a violation of Article 3 ECHR. In this case, a complete refusal of supply by the Greek state is not evident according to the current information, reports and statements, and there is currently no significant likelihood of inhuman or degrading treatment there for the particular situation of the applicants. Medical care in Greece is also seen as sufficient for recognized asylum seekers based on the available evidence. A particular risk for the applicants, as a family with a very small child, is not to be assumed because the available findings show that families with very young children in particular receive special protection in Greece. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal.

Content of Protection/Integration; Country of Origin Information; Reception/Accommodation; Syria; Vulnerable Group;

European Convention on Human Rights;

Individual Expert

Germany, Regional Administrative Court [Verwaltungsgerichte], Applicants (Syria) v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), No 5 A 3753/17, 18 February 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.