The case concerned a Syrian national arrived in Germany with his wife and their application as rejected as inadmissible because they have been previously granted international protection in Greece. The couple were ordered to leave Germany within 30 days from teh decision, otherwise they will be subject to deportation. The applicants contested the decision and alleged a treatment contrary to the EU Charter, Art. 4 upon return to Greece.

The Higher Administrative Court Baden-Wuerttemberg relied first on the fact that the recast APD, Article 33(2) which provides for inadmissibility grounds, cannot be applied when the applicant risk to be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment, as stated in the EU Charter, Art. 4, in the Member State that granted protection, due to the living conditions there. The Court also stated that the assessment depends on all the individual circumstances of the case and a threshold for such treatment is only reached if the indifference of the authorities places a person, wholly dependent on public assistance and irrespective of their will and choices, in a situation of extreme material deprivation which would be incompatible with human dignity.

The Court further relied on civil society reports and mentioned that the applicant, upon return to Greece, would not be able to find decent accommodation and would be homeless for a long period of time. It listed Greek housing programs such as HELIOS and ESTIA which the applicant would not be eligible for; moreover, it found that the applicant would not have access to social housing or private housing. Although the Court noted that some NGOs are providing accommodation, it reasoned that the mere naming of individual organisations does not mean there is sufficient housing capacity and actual access to housing for long term periods. The Court furthermore noted that the reports outlined difficulties faced by beneficiaries of international protection in finding affordable housing and experiencing systematic discrimination from landlords. It concluded that there is a real risk of homelessness even for healthy and able-bodied single men.
 
The Court reasoned that in light of the homelessness awaiting on return to Greece for an unforeseen amount of time it was not relevant whether he could possibly access employment which allowed him to cover his living needs as he is already able to do in Germany. The Court added that in this context, even for healthy and able-0bodied single men it would be difficult and risky not to find housing in Greece as beneficiary of international protection.

Based on all the above  considerations, the Court annulled the inadmissibility decision, cancelled the entry and residence ban and held the removal to Greece would be unlawful.