A Syrian national requested international protection in Austria on 9 January 2024, claiming that he had evaded military service, which the Assad regime had interpreted as oppositional political behaviour. He argued that he did not want to perform military service because he could not reconcile conscription with his conscience, as it would involve participation contrary to human rights and international law.  

On 18 March 2024, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected the application for international protection regarding refugee status but granted subsidiary protection and a one-year residence permit. On 12 April 2024, the applicant appealed against this decision before the Federal Administrative Court.  

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a credible and individualised risk of persecution within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Asylum Act 2005 or Article 1(A)(2) of the Geneva Refugee Convention. The court’s assessment was grounded in updated country of origin information, particularly the country information sheet of the State Documentation for Syria (Version 12, 08.05.2025), and supplemented by: EUAA, COI Report - Syria: Country Focus, July 2025; EUAA, Country Guidance: Syria, April 2024; UNHCR Position on Returns to the Syrian Arab Republic of December 2024; ACCORD Query Response on Syria: Recruitment Practice of the Transitional Government; and reports by Human Rights Watch and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). According to these sources, the court found that President Bashar al-Assad was overthrown on 8 December 2024 following a successful offensive by Hay’at Tahrir ash-Sham (HTS) and allied forces. The Syrian army was decommissioned, soldiers ordered to remain at home, and no new military or reserve call-ups were issued. A transitional government led by Ahmed Al-Sharaa was established, which began building a new military structure based on voluntary recruitment only. The applicant’s home region, Tall Jiblin (Aleppo), was under the control of HTS and its coalition, except for areas held by Turkish-backed forces and the Kurdish administration. 

The court stated that according to the wording of Section 3(1) of the Asylum Act 2005, the prerequisite for being granted refugee status is the threat of persecution in his country of origin within the meaning of Article 1(A)(2) of the Geneva Refugee Convention (GRC), on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The court held that, given the collapse of the Assad regime and the suspension of conscription, there was no significant likelihood of the applicant being drafted into military service  and no risk of persecution could be assumed because of refusal to perform military service. Therefore, the attribution of dissident political views due to draft evasion was no longer plausible. As the applicant could not be expected to participate in acts contrary to international law in the absence of compulsory recruitment, a well-founded fear of persecution under the Geneva Refugee Convention was not established. 

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, rejecting refugee status due to a lack of well-founded fear of persecution. 

The court noted that the applicant was already granted subsidiary protection due to the poor security situation prevailing in Syria and the associated risks, which remained valid since his appeal concerned only the rejection of refugee status.