The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) granted subsidiary protection status to an Eritrean applicant in September 2015 on the grounds that, as a result of his illegal departure, the applicant would suffer serious harm, including indefinite detention and inhuman or degrading conditions, if he returned to Eritrea.

The Eritrean national requested a travel document for foreigners, but the BAMF denied the request on 9 April 2019 because it deemed it reasonable for the applicant to apply for a passport at the Eritrean Embassy. The BAMF stated that they did not believe the conditions for passport issuance were satisfied.

At the first level of appeal, the administrative court ordered BAMF to issue the travel document for foreigners, stating that it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to fulfil the condition of signing a declaration of repentance, which the Eritrean state attached to the issuance of a passport and that the applicant explained credibly and understandably that he did not see himself capable of doing this because he rejected this construct to settle his relationship with the Eritrean state and to regain his civil rights.

The second appeal court, the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court, changed the first instance decision on 18 March 2021, arguing that the requirements for issuing a travel document are not met because the plaintiff could reasonably obtain an Eritrean passport and that in principle, it was reasonable for persons entitled to subsidiary protection to seek a national passport from the diplomatic missions of the country of origin, as the request was a mere formality and did not increase the existing risk of criminal prosecution. The court also added that obtaining an Eritrean passport from the consular authorities of Eritrea would not result in the revocation of the protection status granted in Germany. Moreover, it also noted that according to Article 25(2) of the recast Qualification Directive, Member States only issue travel documents for foreigners to persons entitled to subsidiary protection if they cannot obtain a national passport.

The Eritrean national further appealed the judgment before the Federal Administrative Court who ruled that a person entitled to subsidiary protection may not be refused the issuance of a travel document for foreigners on the grounds that he/she can obtain a passport from their country of origin in a reasonable manner if the country of origin requires the signing of a "declaration of repentance" to issue a passport, which includes the self-incrimination connected to a criminal offense and the foreigner provides a plausible explanation that he/she does not want to make the declaration. The applicant had thus credibility indicated that he did not perceive this being possible because he rejected this concept as a means of resolving his relationship with the Eritrean state and regaining his civil rights.