A., an Eritrean national, arrived in Switzerland on 19 May 2025 with her two minor daughters, B. and C., and requested international protection. EURODAC indicated that she had previously applied for international protection in Malta and Germany. Malta confirmed that A. and her eldest child held valid subsidiary protection and accepted their readmission. On 13 October 2025, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) issued an inadmissibility decision under Article 31a(1)(a) of the Asylum Act, designating Malta as a safe third country and ordering their removal. A. appealed to the Federal Administrative Court on 15 October 2025, alleging systemic deficiencies in Malta’s protection system, lack of state support, medical issues within the family and risks linked to threats by the father of her older child. She held that due to language barriers, she struggled to find stable employment, and that she had unsuccessfully attempted to access social benefits and language courses. She also held that her eldest daughter had been sexually assaulted in Malta.

The Federal Administrative Court confirmed that Malta is a safe third country within the meaning of Article 6(a) of the Asylum Act and that the applicants held valid subsidiary protection and residence rights there. The court found no indication that Maltese authorities would violate the principle of non-refoulement or return the family to Eritrea. It rejected the applicant’s allegations of systemic deficiencies, finding no reliable evidence that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in Malta face conditions amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court emphasised that EU Member States remain bound by the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD) and that Malta must provide access to healthcare, employment, social assistance and accommodation on equal terms with legally residing third-country nationals.

The court held that A.’s assertions regarding lack of assistance, denial of services, domestic violence, and threats by her former partner were unsubstantiated. It noted that she had lived in Malta for over a decade, had worked, and accessed medical care, and could again seek assistance from state authorities or organisations. The allegation of a sexual assault against her daughter had not been reported to Maltese authorities or mentioned during medical consultations.

Regarding the enforcement of the removal to Malta, the court held that it was lawful, reasonable, and feasible.  Referring to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (30696/09, 21 January 2011), Tarakhel v Switzerland (29217/12, 4 November 2014) and A.S. (Syria) v Switzerland (39350/13, 30 June 2015), the court held  that a deterioration in material and social living conditions following transfer does not, in the absence of exceptionally compelling circumstances, reach the threshold of Article 3 of the ECHR. Given that the applicant had lived and supported herself and her children in Malta for a decade, the court held that the threshold of Article 3 of the ECHR was not reached. As for the applicants’ health conditions, the court held that none of the family’s ailments met the exceptionally high threshold for Article 3 of the ECHR and the protection required under Paposhvili v Belgium (41738/10, 13 December 2016). It noted that Malta had adequate medical infrastructure, and the applicants could continue treatment there.  It also held that the best interests of the children did not constitute a barrier to removal, as they had lived only briefly in Switzerland and would remain with their mother.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal in full, upheld the SEM’s decision not to examine the asylum claim and confirmed Malta as a safe third country. It held that the applicants’ removal to Malta was lawful, reasonable, and feasible.