On 24 September 2024, two Ukrainian nationals applied for temporary protection in Switzerland for themselves and their minor son. They claimed to have fled Ukraine in April 2022 following the outbreak of the war, transiting through Romania, Czechia, and Poland before residing in Israel from June 2022 to October 2023, when the Hamas attack took place in Israel. After returning briefly to Ukraine to obtain documents for their child, they moved again to Poland, where they obtained protection status. However, they struggled financially, and since they had not applied for any allowances or financial support, they could not cover the costs of caring for their newborn. They moved to Germany, where their international protection claim was rejected, and subsequently they entered Switzerland on 19 October 2024. They argued that their Polish protection status had expired and that new legal rules in Poland (2024) restricted access to temporary protection only for those arriving directly from Ukraine.

The Swiss State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) initiated a readmission request to Poland, which was accepted. On 29 January 2025, SEM rejected the application for temporary protection and ordered their removal to Poland. On 28 February 2025, the applicants appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court, citing poor living conditions in Poland and the presence of family members in Switzerland. They argued that the Dublin III Regulation did not apply to persons with temporary protection status, and that even if Poland was considered a safe third country, the Swiss authorities must examine the individual circumstances of the case, including the best interests of the child.

The FAC emphasised the principle of subsidiarity of asylum protection, noting that temporary protection in Switzerland is precluded where a valid protection alternative can be affirmed. The court noted that the applicants had previously resided in Poland and held PESEL numbers, which granted access to housing, employment, education, and healthcare, as well as financial assistance. The court further stated that PESEL registrations which had been deactivated could be reactivated upon request, and that Poland had extended protection for Ukrainian nationals until 30 September 2025. The court held that the family had not demonstrated attempts to reapply in Poland, nor had they substantiated claims of destitution or denial of services.

Regarding Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the court found no evidence that removal to Poland would expose the applicants to inhuman or degrading treatment. The child's welfare was assessed, but no exceptional dependency on relatives in Switzerland or compelling best interests considerations were established.

In conclusion, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the applicants were not eligible for temporary protection in Switzerland due to the availability of protection in Poland. The removal order was deemed lawful, reasonable, and feasible.