A national of Ukraine entered Germany in May 2022 and requested international protection, claiming that he feared being conscripted into the Ukrainian military upon return.  He stated that he had no prior military training and objected to participating in armed conflict, claiming an unwillingness to kill or die in war. He also cited economic hardship, potential homelessness, and family ties in Germany as reasons for not returning. 

On 13 November 2024, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected his application for refugee status and subsidiary protection and issued a deportation order with a 30-month re-entry ban. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court of Trier.  

The court held that compulsory military service in Ukraine does not, in itself, amount to persecution within the meaning of Article 3 of the Asylum Law (AsylG). It emphasised that conscription is a general civic obligation applied uniformly to all male citizens at the corresponding age, and punishment or prosecution for evasion is not disproportionate unless it is selectively enforced on UN Refugee Convention grounds.  

The court referred to the CJEU judgment in Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, (C-472/13, 26 February 2015), affirming that refusal to perform military service may constitute persecution only where it reflects a genuine moral or political conviction. 

In the applicant’s case, the court found no evidence of a deeply held moral or religious belief opposing all military participation. His statements reflected situational fear — fear of death, lack of training, and discomfort with violence — rather than an absolute decision of conscience. Moreover, he had stated that he would defend his family with weapons if necessary, undermining the credibility of a complete conscientious objection. 

 The court further held that imprisonment for draft evasion under Ukrainian law did not reach the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the EU Charter. It relied on several country of origin information (COI) sources, including: BAMF, ‘Country Information from the State Documentation’ of 10 February 2025; Danish Immigration Service COI Report ‘Ukraine - Exit rules, exemptions from military service/mobilization during martial law, documentation, punishment of evaders and deserters from military service, of June 2023; Danish Immigration Service COI Report  ‘Ukraine - Mobilization’, of March 2024;  Danish Immigration Service COI Report ‘Ukraine - Prison Conditions’, of 2024.  

According to these reports, Articles 336, 407, 408, and 409 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code prescribe prison sentences ranging from 3 to 12 years for draft evasion and desertion with no suspended sentences during wartime. The court noted that there are different types of prisons in Ukraine and the applicant, if sentenced, would serve a prison sentence of up to 5 years in a prison with an intermediate level of security. These prisons offer small living rooms and in general prisoners can be paid for work related to improvement of their conditions. However, the court noted that overall conditions are poor and can represent a threat to life and health but it assessed that it did not reach the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment. 

Regarding the risk of indiscriminate violence due to the armed conflict, the court noted that central and western Ukraine were largely unaffected by hostilities and that security incidents had sharply declined since August 2023, reaching minimal levels by mid-2024. Despite economic hardship, the applicant, being young and able-bodied, could secure basic living conditions in those regions. 

The Administrative Court of Trier dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld BAMF’s negative decision. It found that neither the applicant’s fear of conscription nor the fear of prosecution for refusal to perform military service relate to a well-founded fear of persecution, for one of the grounds for refugee protection. The court held that imprisonment for draft evasion did not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, and that internal relocation to central or western Ukraine was both safe and reasonable.