Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
12/01/2024
DE: The Higher Administrative Court of Saxony ruled that a 37-year-old Russian national from Chechnya would not face conscription for military service as he was not a reservist, he had already exceeded the age limit for compulsory military service and he could avoid forced conscription by moving to another part of Russia.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Asylum Report
Other Source/Information
Type
Decision
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR)
Reference
Germany, Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht/Verwaltungsgerichtshöf), Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge‚ BAMF), 2 A 1107/19.A, 12 January 2024. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=4229
Case history
Other information
Abstract

The Higher Administrative Court of Saxony ruled on 12 January 2024 that a 37 year-old Russian national from Chechnya would not face conscription for military service as he is not a reservist (he was not a member of the Russian armed forces before his departure) and had already exceeded the age limit of 30 years for compulsory military service. The court held that only reservists, professional soldiers and volunteers would face conscription into the military. Moreover, the court noted that the partial mobilization, which had not been carried out in Chechnya, had been completed according to a notification from the Ministry of Defence on 28 October 2022. The court further added that the fear of being transferred to Russian authorities, imprisoned by them and then recruited is unrealistic and that by moving to another part of Russia, the plaintiff could avoid the risk of a forced conscription in Chechnya.


The court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Dresden of 4 September 2019 (1 K 6222/17.A). The applicant had requested asylum in 2013 with his wife and two children. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the application as inadmissible in 2014, as the applicant had already requested asylum in Poland but due to the expiry of the time limit to transfer the applicant, the application remained to be examined by BAMF. The applicant claimed that if returned to Chechnya he would become a victim of blood feud revenge. BAMF and the Regional court dismissed his request as not credible that he would be a victim of political persecution. The Higher Administrative Court of Saxony also held that the copy of a convocation order did not give rise to any other assessment, as there were doubts as to the authenticity of the proof, which cannot be clarified in the absence of the original document.


Finally, the court held that there were no indications which would justify the granting of subsidiary protection status and also the establishment of prohibitions on deportation.


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht/Verwaltungsgerichtshöf)
Case Number
2 A 1107/19.A
Date of Decision
12/01/2024
Country of Origin
Russia
Keywords
Assessment of evidence/assessment of documents
Internal protection alternative/ flight alternative
Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription