The applicant, Syrian national of Arabic ethnicity and Islamic faith, claimed asylum invoking fear of persecution because his father was imprisoned and tortured several times for participating in demonstrations against the Syrian regime. He also claimed that he fears being conscripted for military service by the Syrian army and claimed that the authorities are accusing those opposing conscription of being against the regime, thus leading to conviction, imprisonment and inhuman and degrading treatment. The applicant also claimed that if returned he would be obliged to be conscripted in the army and to participate in the war, and to commit war crimes. The BAMF granted him subsidiary protection but rejected the asylum claim. He unsuccessfully contested the negative decision on asylum before the Saxony Higher Administrative Court.

The Higher Administrative Court found that the applicant was not subject of any act of persecution within the meaning of the Asylum Act, that he is not affected by any imminent act of persecution and there were no credible indications that in case of return to Syria he will be subjected to threats, targeted persecution, arbitrary arrests and torture because of his father's opposition activities. His family members continued to live in Syria after his father's death and also during his activities.

For country of origin information, the court consulted inter alia the EASO report Syria Situation of Returnees from abroad, published in June 2021.

With regard to military conscription and risk of being involved in war crimes, the Higher Administrative Court noted that there is a decrease in the number and combat activities in Syria, and the applicant was unaware of possible areas of deployment, these factors leading to the conclusion that the applicant would not be obliged to perform military activities, including war crimes, within the meaning and requirements set up in the CJEU judgement of EZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany, 19 November 2020. The Higher Administrative Court concluded that there was no significant likelihood of political persecution of the applicant as a conscript for military service. The appeal was rejected but the applicant can further submit an appeal on points of law before the Federal Administrative Court.