The case examines whether deficiencies in the health system or in the supply situation in the country of origin could lead to an infringement of ECHR. The Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) dismissed the applicant's appeal regarding the application for international protection, issuing the return decision and setting a deadline for voluntary departure.

The Supreme Administrative Court also dealt with the question of how to interpret Art. 8 para 1 of the Asylum Act 2005 in accordance with EU law, an issue previously unresolved by case law. Here the Supreme Administrative Court adhered to its previous rulings, according to which the granting of subsidiary protection as set out in Art. 8 para 1 of the Asylum Act 2005 can be based on the real risk of violating Art. 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as a result of rejecting a foreigner at the border or forcibly returning or removing that individual to the person’s country of origin. Such a risk need not result from the conduct of third parties or from a threat arising in an armed conflict. Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court did not concur with the opinion of the Federal Administrative Court, which had ruled that the decision to grant such status was to be based exclusively on the Qualification Directive, without applying the provision in Art. 8 para 1 of the Asylum Act 2005.