The applicant, national of Mali, applied for international protection in Germany but based on EURODAC findings his application was rejected as inadmissible as Italy was responsible to process his application. Upon appeal, the administrative court annulled the contested decision and stated that vulnerable Dublin returnees are entirely dependent on state support which is insufficient in terms of housing and minimum living standard, thus amounting to a risk of treatment contrary to the Article 4 EU Charter. The BAMF has further appealed and argued that living conditions and accommodation are sufficient for Dublin returnees in Italy, and also made a reference to a recent ECtHR judgement M.T. (Eritrea) v the Netherlands, no. 46595/19, 23 March 2021.

The BAMF contested the decision, and the High Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The High Administrative Court consulted a number of reports on Italy, collected evidence through expert information from Swiss Refugee Aid and noted that although the principle of mutual trust between Member States applied, it is not irrefutable and the rebuttal of presumption is subject to a high threshold, since not every risk of violation of human right equals to a breach of CEAS.

The High Administrative Court made a detailed analysis of the situation of Dublin returnees and their possibility to be accommodated in reception centers to conclude that, based also on individual circumstances, the applicant would find himself in the impossibility to be received in a reception center upon return, thus leading to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. The High Administrative Court also noted that there is no individual assurance from the Italian authorities that the applicant will receive human accommodation. The High Administrative Court confirmed that the BAMF decision on absence of prohibition to deportation is illegal, because after the inadmissibility decision was annulled, the BAMF must examine the application for asylum.