The case concerned the appeal lodged by the applicant against the inadmissibility decision issued by the BAMF against his asylum application on grounds that he already benefits of international protection in Greece, based on a decision of 16 November 2023. The Administrative Court of Cologne allowed the appeal and overturned the return decision. It stated that the inadmissibility decision cannot be based on Paragraph 29(1)(2) of the Asylum Law (equivalent of Article 33(2)(a) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive).

The court referenced to the CJEU judgements in: Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) v Adel Hamed and Amar Omar, (13 November 2019, C-540 and 541/17), Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bashar Ibrahim (C‑297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim, Fadwa Ibrahim, Bushra Ibrahim, Mohammad Ibrahim, Ahmad Ibrahim (C‑318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov (19 March 2019) when assessing the threshold for Article 4 of the EU Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR.

The court took into account various reports regarding the situation in Greece, including the AIDA, Country Report Greece, 2023 and noted that other courts in Germany considered that return to Greece is possible for beneficiaries of international protection at least in the case of young, healthy and fit men and that those courts referred to possible activities in the “shadow economy” which result in access to informal housing. The Administrative Court of Cologne disagreed with this approach and reasoning and stated that allegation of working in the "shadow economy" in Greece and access to informal housing are not supported by evidence that informal housing is available or accessible in sufficient quantities, moreover, access to informal housing requires local knowledge and/or contacts.

The court ruled that in case of return to Greece, it is highly ­likely for the applicant to be subject to a serious risk of degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter or Article 3 of the ECHR. The court had serious doubts that the applicant, irrespective of his will and personal choices, he would find himself in extreme material deprivation in Greece and will not be able to meet his most basic needs (‘bed, bread, soap’) for an extended period of time. The court added that the lack of access to housing will mean, with a high probability, that he will not be able to provide himself with the goods necessary for survival from his own resources, he will not have access gainful employment, or to state social benefits to secure his subsistence level and would not be able to meet the most elementary needs through the support of non-governmental organisations.