The case concerned an applicant of Ethiopian nationality and member of the Tigrinya ethnic group, who was rejected an asylum application by the BAMF and whose appeal before the Regional Administrative Court of Regensburg of 2 May 2023 was rejected. The applicant applied to the Higher Administrative Court of Munich for leave to appeal against this decision based on the ground of appeal of the fundamental importance of the case pursuant to Section 78(3) No 1 of the Asylum Act and the violation of the right to a fair hearing pursuant to Section 78(3) No 3 of the Asylum Act in conjunction with Section 138 No 3 of the Administrative Court Code.  

In the proceedings, the Higher Administrative Court of Munich ruled on the question of whether the supply and security situation in Ethiopia was so desolate, that this constituted deportation ban pursuant to Section 60(5) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR or Section 60(7) of the Residence Act.

The Administrative Court of Regensburg had argued in its judgment that the Ethiopian state had agreed upon a ceasefire with the Tigrinya and ended its warlike activities with an agreement on the permanent cessation of hostilities and disarmament and a peace agreement in which aid deliveries to the affected region have been agreed upon. The applicant argued that almost all regions of Ethiopia were affected by armed conflicts which could reach the threshold of an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Section 4(1) sentence 2 no 3 of the Asylum Act which would amount to a real risk of threat upon return. The applicant also stated that the Administrative Court of Regensburg had violated the principle of official investigation in its decision, as it had not sufficiently considered the details of the applicant's illness. Furthermore, the applicant argued a violation of the right to be heard, as the court of first instance assumed the support of the siblings living in Ethiopia if he returned there, without having questioned him about this at the hearing.

The Higher Administrative Court of Munich found that the application had not been filed in due time and that the action was therefore inadmissible. The court also ruled that although the country information on Ethiopia conveyed a very alarming picture of the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia, the applicant failed to sufficiently substantiate that any returnee would be exposed to a real risk of a violation of Article 3 ECHR or a danger to life in Ethiopia and that the high requirements of a national deportation ban for humanitarian reasons were not met. Furthermore, the Higher Administrative Court of Munich held that the Regional Administrative Court of Regensburg did not violate the principle of official investigation, because it took sufficient account of the applicant's individual situation who failed to sufficiently explain the consequences of his illness in the event of a return.

Finally, the court ruled that the applicant's submissions did not sufficiently demonstrate a violation of the right to be heard. The Higher Administrative Court of Munich therefore rejected the leave to appeal as inadmissible and unfounded.