The case concerned a complaint by the BAMF against the non-admission of an onward appeal against a decision by the Higher Administrative Court of Münster of 13 June 2023. In the contested decision, the Higher Administrative Court of Münster considered a Dublin transfer to Italy inadmissible on the grounds that the Italian authorities decision to stop readmissions resulted in systemic deficiencies and a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter.

The BAMF based its complaint against the non-admission of the appeal both on the grounds of the fundamental importance of the case in accordance with Section 132(2) No 1 of the Administrative Court Code and on a procedural defect in accordance with Section 132(2) No 3 of the Administrative Court Code.

The Federal Administrative Court decided that the appeal could not be based on the question raised by the BAMF as to whether the refusal of the Italian authorities to readmit only leads to the actual impossibility of the transfer or can justify a violation of Article 4 of the EU Charter. The Federal Administrative Court referred to CJEU Bashar Ibrahim (C‑297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim, Fadwa Ibrahim, Bushra Ibrahim, Mohammad Ibrahim, Ahmad Ibrahim (C‑318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov, Joined Cases C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, 19 March 2019, Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑163/17, 19 March 2019 and Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) v Adel Hamed and Amar Omar, C‑540/17 and C‑541/17, 13 November 2019 on the existence and the extent of systemic weaknesses in EU Member States. The court ruled that these conditions were not automatically fulfilled by a decision of a Member State to stop readmissions. However, even though the lower court had asserted an incorrect application of the principles developed in the CJEU rulings, this did not demonstrate the fundamental importance of the case in accordance with Section 132(2) No 1 of the Administrative Court Code.

The Federal Administrative Court then confirmed the existence of a procedural error, as the Higher Administrative Court failed to sufficiently substantiate a violation of Article 4 of the EU Charter due to systemic weaknesses only based on Italy's decision to stop readmissions. Although the Higher Administrative Court of Münster had explained in detail Italy's unwillingness to accept asylum seekers, it had not demonstrated a resulting risk of extreme material hardship for the individual.

Based on the above, the Federal Administrative Court annulled the contested decision in accordance with Section 133(6) of the Administrative Court Code and referred the legal dispute back to the Higher Administrative Court of Münster for a new hearing and decision.