According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network: 

'The risk prognosis within the framework of Art. 4 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should be based on the return of the person concerned with his/her nuclear family (already existing in the federal territory) also for a return to an EU Member State.

The applicant, a Nigerian national, has been living in Germany with his wife and their two children, born in Italy in 2013 and 2015, since 2019. Although the applicant and his relatives had already been granted subsidiary protection in Italy in 2015, the applicant also applied for asylum in Germany. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected his asylum application as inadmissible pursuant to Sec. 29 (1) No. 2 of the Asylum Act and issued a warning of his deportation to Italy. His appeal against this decision was unsuccessful before the Administrative Court.

On the appeal of the applicant, the Higher Administrative Court changed the ruling of the Administrative Court and annulled the decision of the BAMF with the exception of the finding that the applicant must not be deported to Nigeria. According to the Higher Administrative Court, it was not sufficiently ensured that if the claimant returned to Italy together with his nuclear family, their special needs resulting from the age of the children born in 2013 and 2015 would be met. In particular, it did not appear to be guaranteed that, in the event of a return, there would be available and accessible living space that would prevent homelessness, which would not be acceptable even temporarily in the case of smaller children, and would be designed to meet the special needs of children. As a result, the children requiring special protection would be exposed to the “real risk” of inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Italy.

The Federal Administrative Court held that the rule of presumption of a return of the nuclear family to the country of origin also applies in the case of a forecast return to another Member State. The legal principles developed in this regard would apply also in the context of an inadmissibility decision according to Sec. 29 (1) No. 2 of the Asylum Act. However, this case law would not change the fact that a claim for the determination of a prohibition of deportation pursuant to Sec. 60 (5) or (7) of the Residence Act establishes an individual legal position that can only be based on dangers that threaten the foreigner himself. Rather, it is merely a matter of including the consequences for the applicant's own livelihood resulting from the presence of members of the nuclear family and the assumed fulfilment of basic solidarity obligations among family members in the risk prognosis. In the light of Art. 6 Basic Law and Art. 8 ECHR, there is no room for a prognosis basis that only takes into account the situation of the addressee of the inadmissibility decision, even in cases such as the present one, as it would not only ignore the reality of life, but also mandatory constitutional requirements."