The applicant, a Syrian minor, requested international protection on 6 November 2022. On 17 November 2022, he was admitted to the federal basic welfare support system (GVS) and accommodated in a care facility for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. The house rules were provided to him in a language he could understand. On 17 February 2023, he was granted the opportunity to attend a hearing regarding his violations of the house rules through a written interrogation by the BFA. The applicant repeatedly violated the house rules, was expelled twice, and caused €1,500 in damage to windowpanes. On 14 March 2023, he was involved in a physical altercation with another asylum seeker, resulting in a ban from the premises. On 31 July 2023, he was given the opportunity to submit a written statement concerning the violations. Because of ongoing breaches and aggressive behavior, the BFA suspended his pocket money from 1 August to 31 October 2023. The Federal Administrative Court upheld this decision. However, the applicant continued to violate house rules, including missing mandatory checks and disturbing the peace at night, despite being informed that further violations could lead to additional restrictions or withdrawal of basic services. On 12 March 2024, he was questioned again by the BFA, denying responsibility. Due to persistent misconduct, the BFA suspended his pocket money for the remainder of his stay. The applicant appealed this decision.

The Federal Administrative Court determined that the numerous and severe violations of house rules, committed within a short period, constituted gross misconduct, which significantly complicated the maintenance of order in the center and disrupted the coexistence of other guests, as defined in Section 2(4) of the GVG-B. Moreover, the court affirmed that decisions regarding unaccompanied minors must prioritise the best interests of the child and adhere to the principle of proportionality. Following the CJEU judgment in Zubair Haqbin v Belgium (C-233/18, 12 November 2019), the court reiterated that when imposing sanctions under Article 21(4) of the recast RCD, including restrictions on services, special attention must be given to the minor’s situation and the principle of proportionality, considering factors such as the minor’s well-being, social development, and background. The court held that suspending pocket money would not hinder the applicant’s ability to meet essential needs or impact his overall physical, mental, emotional, moral, and social development or adequate standard of living. It concluded that the measure taken by the authority did not negatively impact or violate the applicant's well-being, also given that he was nearing adulthood. The court noted that neither warnings nor explanatory conversations improved the applicant’s behavior, who continued to violate house rules even after restrictions on basic services were imposed. It also noted that the applicant was heard by the BFA on 12 March 2023, meeting the requirements for pocket money withdrawal under Section 2(6) of the GVG-B. Thus, the court found the pocket money withdrawal legally justified and proportionate, and dismissed the appeal.