Four Afghan nationals — A. and B. and their two minor daughters C. and D. — applied for international protection in Switzerland on 14 November 2024. A EURODAC search revealed that they had already been recognised as refugees in Greece on 23 August 2024 and were issued valid residence permits and travel documents. After the Greek authorities accepted the readmission request for the applicants, confirming that they were recognised refugees and that their residence permits were valid until 22 August 2027, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) granted the applicants a legal hearing regarding the intended non-admission of their asylum applications.  

The applicants stated that both parents had lived in Iran since their childhood and that their children were also born there. None of the parents had completed school. In 2019, the family traveled to Türkiye, where they stayed for around 5 years. Since it was not possible for them to obtain regular residence in Türkiye, the applicants travelled to Greece by boat on 28 July 2024. After obtaining refugee status in Greece, they were given one month to leave the camp where they were staying since their arrival. The applicants recounted that they had to live in a tent next to the camp for one and a half months while they waited for their adult daughter E to also obtain protection. They held that they did not receive assistance to find accommodation, found difficulties finding a job on the island, and that their children were unable to attend school. They also claimed that they had no Greek tax or social security number, so they could not access medical care. The applicants held that they were particularly vulnerable due to their health problems, their lack of education or knowledge of Greek, and their status as a family with minor children, and that due to the lack of integration measures in Greece they risked becoming homeless, which could constitute inhumane treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and violated the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  

On 4 April 2025, the SEM deemed the applications inadmissible under Article 6a(2)(b) of the Asylum Act, since Greece was a safe third country where they already enjoyed international protection. The SEM ordered their removal to Greece. The applicants appealed to the Federal Administrative Court on 11 April 2025, requesting annulment of the decision and provisional admission, or alternatively individual guarantees from Greek authorities ensuring access to accommodation, food, and healthcare. The applicants alleged that in its assessment the SEM had disregarded their vulnerability as a family with small children and health problems and failed to provide a reasoned decision.  

The Federal Administrative Court assessed both the applicants’ personal circumstances and updated country-of-origin information on reception conditions in Greece. The court held that Greece was a safe third country which was presumed to comply with its obligations under international law. Relying on its reference rulings A, B, C, D, E and F v State Secretary for Migration (E-3427/2021 and E-3431/2021 of 28 March 2025), the court reiterated that enforcement of removals to Greece is generally permissible for persons who have received protection there, since despite certain weaknesses, it could not be considered that Greece had a dysfunctional reception system. The presumption of reasonableness of removals to Greece also applied to vulnerable persons, even if stricter scrutiny was required in the case of extremely vulnerable persons (such as families with children).  

The court noted that the applicants held valid Greek residence and travel documents, could access the labour market and public healthcare through their AMKA and AFM numbers, and were eligible for social benefits such as the Guaranteed Minimum Income (EEE). It held that while some of the integration schemes in Greece had been terminated, the applicants were eligible for the recently launched HELIOS+ programme. The Federal Administrative Court also cited a recent judgment (2 A1131/24.A, 6 August 2024), from the Hessian Administrative Court in Kassel (Germany), which held that homelessness among refugees in Athens does not appear to be a mass phenomenon, especially thanks to the formation of their own structures and support among their compatriots. Overall, the Federal Administrative Court found that while housing and employment opportunities in Greece remained limited, beneficiaries of protection were generally able to meet their basic needs and avoid homelessness through governmental or NGO support. It also found no indication that the minor children would be unable to enroll in education in the foreseeable future. The court also emphasized that the applicants had not made reasonable efforts to seek assistance, labour integration or accommodation, in view of their rapid journey onward to Switzerland a few days after receiving their travel documents. It emphasized that seeking assistance should not be limited to requesting support from staff at the asylum camp, but rather, beneficiaries are expected to turn to state institutions or to charitable organizations if necessary. The court also held that the medical issues advanced by the applicants were not of such gravity as to preclude return, and available treatment existed in Greece.  

In conclusion, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that removal to Greece would not expose the family to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. The applicants were considered vulnerable but not particularly vulnerable within the meaning of the court’s 2022 reference rulings. The court therefore upheld the SEM’s decision, dismissing the appeal and also rejecting the need to obtain individual guarantees from the Greek authorities.