The applicant, a Syrian national from Damascus, entered Austria in April 2021 and applied for international protection. On 3 October 2022, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected his application, did not grant a residence permit, and issued a return decision, declaring deportation to Syria permissible with a 14-day deadline for voluntary departure. On 21 October 2022 the applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. The court concluded that, as a male Syrian of conscription age residing outside Syria, the applicant could avoid military service by paying an exemption fee under Syrian law. It found no indication that the applicant lacked the financial means to pay the fee or that there were special circumstances which would lead the Syrian regime to view him as an oppositional figure. Considering the security situation in Damascus and his university education, professional experience, and support from a wealthy family, the court determined that the applicant could safely return to Syria. The applicant appealed this decision to the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of his constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal treatment (Article I(1) of the Federal Constitutional Law), the right to life (Article 2 of the ECHR), and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 of the ECHR).

The Constitutional Court held that the Federal Administrative Court had not adopted an interpretation of the law that contradicted fundamental rights, nor did it commit any gross procedural errors that would warrant the intervention of the Constitutional Court in relation to the alleged violations of the aforementioned fundamental rights. Specifically, the court found no constitutional violation in the lower court's conclusion that the applicant could afford the exemption fee and undertake the necessary administrative steps to secure his exemption from military service in Syria, deeming this option reasonable and feasible for him.

The court also found that the Federal Administrative Court did not commit a constitutional error in denying the applicant subsidiary protection status. This decision was based on the country information report for Syria, Version 9, published on 17 July 2023, which indicated that while Syria remains in a state of civil war, efforts have been made since 2018 to present Damascus as a relatively safe area following the government's recapture of the largely agricultural province surrounding the capital. Although attacks have continued in Damascus and its surrounding areas since 2020, particularly targeting civilians, military personnel, and regime-affiliated individuals, the conflict remains concentrated in the northwest. According to the Constitutional Court, the lower court reasonably concluded that the security situation in Damascus, the applicant's place of origin, was not so unstable as to automatically consider that the return would result in a real risk of harm violating Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR.

Regarding the availability of basic services, the Constitutional Court noted that the Federal Administrative Court considered both the country reports and the applicant's individual circumstances. It found that, while Syria's overall supply situation is precarious due to food shortages and high prices, access to water, electricity, education, and healthcare is generally guaranteed in Damascus (as well as in the governorates of Lattakia and Tartus), despite the deterioration caused by the economic crisis. In the applicant's specific case, the Federal Administrative Court concluded that he would not face an existential threat upon return, given his personal circumstances and in light of the supply situation in Damascus. The applicant comes from a wealthy family residing in the family home in Damascus, which is financially supported by his siblings living abroad. Based on this assessment, the Federal Administrative Court reasonably concluded that the applicant would be able to secure his livelihood upon return to Damascus. The Constitutional Court found this conclusion to be reasonable and consistent with prior case law, affirming that decisions regarding an applicant's return to Syria, based on the availability of basic necessities and the applicant's personal circumstances, do not constitute a violation of Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. As a result, the Constitutional Court upheld the Federal Administrative Court's decision that no real danger to the applicant's rights would arise upon his return to Syria.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court reiterated that a deportation measure cannot be enforced if it would violate the right to protection of private and family life, as guaranteed under Article 8 ECHR. In such cases, a balancing of interests must be conducted to assess the competing rights and interests involved. The Constitutional Court found no constitutional violation in the approach taken by the Federal Administrative Court, which thoroughly examined the facts of the case and determined that the public interest in expelling a foreign national without a residence permit outweighed the applicant's interest in remaining in Austria under Article 8 of the ECHR. Thus, the Constitutional Court concluded that the public interest in enforcing immigration control took precedence over the applicant's right to remain in Austria, and therefore, no constitutional violation occurred.

Conclusively, the court found no violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights and dismissed the appeal. It clarified that this outcome did not relieve the enforcement authority from its obligation to adhere to Article 3 ECHR, particularly with regard to the current security and supply situation in the applicant's country of origin, when carrying out the deportation measure.