A Syrian woman requested international protection in Austria on 14 November 2022, arguing that her husband had died in 2019 and that since then she had lived alone in Syria afraid of the attacks by the civil war parties. On 10 January 2024, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected the application regarding refugee status but granted subsidiary protection and a temporary residence permit. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Federal Administrative Court. The court found that the applicant had lived alone in Syria, in Al-Hasakah, as a widow, without any paid work and taking care of the household. The court noted that the applicant suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure, a heart condition and had to take medication regularly. The court held that the applicant would not receive any support from male family members if she were returned to Syria. Based on country reports (including EUAA, Country Guidance: Syria, April 2024), the court stated that, as a woman without male support, the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of gender-based violence in Syria. It also found that she would be at risk of becoming a victim of abuse, exploitation and human trafficking, given that the Syrian State is neither willing nor able to protect her from such threats. For these reasons, the court upheld the appeal and granted refugee status to the applicant pursuant to Section 3(1) of the Asylum Act 2005, which transposes Article 9 and Article 10 of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD). The BFA lodged an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), alleging that the Federal Administrative Court’s reasoning was insufficient and failed to consider both the fact that the applicant had a supportive family (two brothers and a sister) in Syria and the particular conditions of women in Kurdish-controlled areas of Syria. 

SAC held that the lower court had wrongly assumed that the applicant should be regarded as a single woman who would not receive male family support in Syria. It noted that at least two brothers of the applicant (with their families) were still living in Syria. SAC held that the lower court failed to provide a comprehensible explanation as to why the applicant would not receive support from these male relatives living 80 km away from the applicant’s hometown, or why it would be unreasonable for the applicant to relocate close to them upon her return to Syria.  

Furthermore, SAC stated that even assuming that the applicant would be a single widow without male family support upon return, the lower court’s considerations regarding the persecution she faced were incorrect. SAC affirmed that the lower court’s reasoning should have been based on the country of origin reports current at the time of the decision. SAC emphasised that, in the event of unstable and rapidly changing circumstances in the country of origin, even relatively recent reports could have already lost their relevance, as already established in its judgment in Applicant v BFA (25 June 2024). SAC held that the lower court’s decision of 17 December 2024 did not take into account the serious change in the situation in Syria that occurred a little more than a week before: the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria on 8 December 2024. SAC noted that country determinations were made from the country information sheet of the State Documentation of 27 March 2024, version 11, which had not yet been able to consider this serious change in the situation in Syria and its consequences for the Syrian society. SAC stated that the lower court’s assessment that ‘practically all parties to the conflict in Syria’ used sexualised violence against women, and that therefore the applicant was at risk of becoming a victim of abuse, exploitation, and human trafficking, should be questioned and reviewed in the light of the changed circumstances. SAC pointed out that the country reports used by the lower court considered the critical situation of women in Syria particularly in connection with the prolonged civil war and the associated violence. Therefore, SAC held that it was necessary to determine the extent to which this assessment was still correct after the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria on 8 December 2024. Moreover, SAC noted that the country of origin information (COI) available before 8 December 2024 already emphasised that the risk of persecution for women varied depending on their social status and the position of the woman or her family. Additionally, it observed that COI reported that women’s personal social freedom differed across regions, especially in areas outside government control, ranging from severe dress and behaviour restrictions in areas controlled by extremist groups to formal equality in the (Kurdish) self-governing area. SAC held that an individual examination of the circumstances was necessary to properly assess the risk of persecution that each Syrian female applicant may face upon return to Syria. The court also noted that the UNHCR International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update VI of March 2021, and the EUAA Country Guidance: Syria (April 2024) set out risk profiles for (single) women, but an individual case-by-case assessment was still required. SAC ruled that in the present case, the necessary individual assessment was inadequately conducted, as the applicant’s classification as a single widow was insufficiently justified and no up-to-date COI were used to assess the situation. SAC examined the lower court's statement that the applicant was an ill 65-year-old woman. However, SAC stated that although this circumstance constituted a particular vulnerability, it did not necessarily establish entitlement for asylum beyond the subsidiary protection already granted by the BFA. 

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the appeal and annulled the decision, finding deficiencies in the reasoning, which rendered it unlawful due to a violation of procedural rules.