The applicants were granted refugee status in Greece and entered Germany in March 2019. After their asylum applications were rejected as inadmissible by a final decision, they applied for a residence permit, noting that the first applicant was the second wife and the other applicants were the children of a Syrian national recognised in Germany as entitled to subsidiary protection, who lives in Germany with his first wife and six other children.

The state authority refused to issue residence permits. They were not permitted to rely on the provision of Section 25(5) of the Residence Act due to the legal impossibility of leaving the country, as Section 36a of the Residence Act regulates family reunification with persons entitled to subsidiary protection.

Their appeal before the Federal Administrative Court was rejected. The court held that Section 36a of the Residence Act fundamentally contradicts the applicability of Section 25(5) of the Residence Act, according to which a residence permit can be issued for humanitarian reasons due to the legal impossibility of leaving the country through no fault of one's own. The court noted that Section 36a of the Residence Act requires the existence of humanitarian reasons, which are rooted in the protection of marriage and family, among other things. The court added that Section 36a Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 of the Residence Act provides for a quota of 1,000 visas per month, which clearly shows the legislator's aim of preventing the reception and integration systems of the state and society from being overwhelmed and of controlling the reunification of family members of persons entitled to subsidiary protection - beyond family asylum - in terms of residence law via the quota procedure regulated in Section 36a of the Residence Act. The court highlighted that the resulting blocking effect of Section 36a of the Residence Act opens up scope for the application of Section 25 Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act only in the case of subsequent events occurring in the federal territory, which, according to the findings of the appeal court, did not occur in the present case.

Thus, the court held that Section 36a of the Residence Act regulates family reunification with persons entitled to subsidiary protection in a fundamentally conclusive manner and blocks recourse to Section 25 Paragraph 5 of the Residence Act if the legal impossibility of leaving the country is based solely on family ties to the person entitled to subsidiary protection that already existed before entry.