The case concerned a Syrian national who applied for asylum in Austria on 25 January 2023. During her interview at the BFA, she stated that her brother-in-law had wanted to forcibly marry her after the death of her husband and had threatened her after refusal. In its decision, the BFA refused refugee protection and granted subsidiary protection. By decision of 30 March 2023, the Federal Administrative Court, deciding with a male single judge, rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an onward appeal against this decision, before the Federal Constitutional Court.

The Federal Constitutional Court held that the Federal Administrative Court had failed to apply Section 20(2) of the Asylum Act 2005, according to which a same-sex judge or senate must decide before the Federal Administrative Court if the applicant claimed a violation of his or her sexual self-determination before the BFA. Pursuant to Section 6(1) No 4 of the GV 2021, a violation of the provision of a same-sex judge leads to the judge's lack of competence to examine the case.

The Federal Constitutional Court considered that with her statements in the asylum interview, the applicant had identified a threat of a violation of her right to sexual self-determination. According to the court's considerations, it was irrelevant whether the deciding judge considered these statements credible. The Federal Constitutional Court decided that by allocating a male judge to the case, the Federal Administrative Court violated the applicant's right to a fair trial before a lawful judge and therefore had to set aside the contested decision.