According to the ECtHR Press release:

"The applicant, A.S., is a Syrian national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1988 and currently lives in Geneva (Switzerland). Having entered Switzerland from Italy, A.S. sought asylum in Switzerland in February 2013. The Swiss Federal Office of Migration (now the State Secretariat for Migration) rejected his request in May 2013 based on the fact that his fingerprints had already been registered in Greece and Italy before he had entered Switzerland. Furthermore, the Italian authorities had already accepted a request by the Swiss authorities under the EU Dublin Regulation that A.S. be taken back to Italy. A.S. appealed against the decision, arguing in particular that he had been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder, after having been persecuted and tortured in Syria, and was receiving treatment in Switzerland. Furthermore, his two sisters lived in Switzerland, whose presence gave him a certain emotional stability. In June 2013, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeal, holding in particular that under the Dublin Regulation he had to return to Italy. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court A.S. complained that, if returned to Italy, he would face treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular he argued that due to systemic deficiencies in the reception system for asylum seekers in Italy, he would not be provided with proper housing and adequate medical treatment. He further alleged, in particular, that his removal to Italy would sever his relationship with his sisters in Switzerland and violate his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Article 3 The Court referred to its judgment in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland, in which it had raised serious doubts as to the capacities of the reception system for asylum seekers in Italy. In particular, there was a possibility that asylum seekers might be left without accommodation or might be accommodated in overcrowded facilities without any privacy. At the same time, the Court had found that the overall situation of reception arrangements in Italy could not in itself justify barring all removals of asylum seekers to Italy. The Court noted that A.S. was not, at the present moment, critically ill. It was a matter of some speculation how quickly his health would deteriorate and to what extent he would be able to obtain access to medical treatment if removed to Italy. There was currently no indication that he would not receive appropriate psychological treatment there and no indication that he would not have access to the anti-depressant of the kind which he was receiving in Switzerland. Moreover, the case of A.S. did not disclose exceptional circumstances comparable to those in another case in which the Court had found that the deportation of the applicant, who was in the final stages of AIDS and had no prospect of medical care or family support in his country of origin, would violate the Convention. 3 Accordingly, the Court found that A.S.'s removal to Italy would not be in violation of Article 3.

Article 8 There was no indication that A.S. had lived in Switzerland before lodging his asylum request in February 2013, which was four months before he lodged his application before the Court. During that short period of time, his presence in Switzerland had been accepted by the authorities only for the purpose of examining his status as an asylum seeker. It could thus not be argued that the tolerance by the Swiss authorities of his presence in the country for a long period had enabled him to establish and develop strong family ties there. The Court had already found in other cases that relations between parents and adult children or between adult siblings did not constitute family life for the purpose of Article 8 unless the applicants could demonstrate additional elements of dependence. Moreover, bearing in mind that States had a certain room for manoeuvre (“margin of appreciation” under the Court's case-law) in immigration matters, the Court found that a fair balance had been struck between the competing interests at stake, namely A.S.'s personal interests in establishing any family life in Switzerland on the one hand and, on the other, the public order interests of the Swiss Government in controlling immigration. As to A.S.'s complaint that his removal to Italy would prevent him from continuing to benefit from the support from his sisters in the context of his therapy, it had already been dealt with under Article 3. The Court did not consider that it raised any separate issues under Article 8. Accordingly, the Court found that A.S.'s removal to Italy would not be in violation of Article 8."