The applicant, a national of Afghanistan, requested international protection on 12 June 2024 in Austria, asserting that he faced persecution by the Taliban in his country of origin before leaving and feared for his life. Given two Eurodac hits in relation to the applicant in Greece, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) transmitted a request for information to Greece pursuant to Article 34 of the Dublin III Regulation. On 1 July 2024, Greece notified the BFA that the applicant had been granted refugee status in Greece on 11 April 2024, with a residence permit valid until 10 April 2027. Consequently, the BFA declared the application for international protection inadmissible. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, contending that, upon his arrival in Greece, he found himself in a precarious situation. He argued that, following the granting of refugee status, the Greek state had discontinued the financial support which he received as asylum seeker, leaving him without secure accommodation, food, or financial assistance, and that he was unable to secure employment. On 28 August 2024, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the inadmissibility decision. The court reasoned that, based on country of origin information (COI) and the applicant’s personal circumstances, it was not foreseeable that he would face extreme material deprivation upon return to Greece. The applicant subsequently filed a further appeal before the Constitutional Court, asserting that the contested ruling violated his constitutional rights, specifically the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR and his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the appeal was unfounded. It determined that the Federal Administrative Court had not interpreted the law in a manner that violated fundamental rights, nor that it had committed any gross procedural errors that would constitute a breach of fundamental rights.

The Constitutional Court held that the Federal Administrative Court had correctly concluded that the applicant would not face a significant risk of a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR if returned to Greece. The court noted that, in reaching this conclusion, the lower court had based its assessment on relevant COI as well as the applicant’s individual circumstances, conducting a case-by-case evaluation. In particular, the COI consulted and reproduced in the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court had described the situation of beneficiaries of international protection in Greece and had confirmed that the applicant would have access to the housing market, the labour market, language courses, and aid programs. Hence, the lower court had concluded that the applicant would not face an emergency situation if returned to Greece. The Federal Administrative Court had also determined that returning the applicant to Greece would not pose a real risk to his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. The Constitutional Court affirmed that this assessment could not be contested, as there was no legitimate basis to challenge the finding that the applicant would not face a violation of these rights in Greece. The Constitutional Court also found no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, affirming that the Federal Administrative Court's reasoning could not be overturned from a constitutional standpoint. Specifically, the Constitutional Court  upheld the lower court's conclusion that, based on the circumstances of the case, the public interest in terminating the applicant's stay outweighed the interest in remaining in the country under Article 8 of the ECHR.