A Russian national from Chechenya requested international protection in Germany on 17 July 2023, arguing that he would face a risk of harm in Russia due to conscription for military service, possible deployment in the war against Ukraine and punishment for draft evasion. By decision of 11 April 2024, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) rejected the application and ordered him to leave Germany. The applicant appealed the decision before the Administrative Court in Magdeburg.

By judgment of 8 May 2025, the Administrative Court in Magdeburg ordered BAMF to grant the applicant subsidiary protection, finding that upon return to Russia, the applicant would likely be conscripted and could be forced to sign a military contract, resulting in deployment in the war against Ukraine.

The BAMF appealed the judgment, arguing that the Administrative Court failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the likelihood of conscription and available means of avoiding it, in particular the fact that, since 2004, all conscripts in the Russian Federation have had a constitutional right to perform alternative civilian service (ACS) instead of military service. The BAMF further argued that there was no reliable evidence that ACS has been systematically abolished or suspended. Moreover, BAMF invoked that neither case law nor current country-of-origin information supported the conclusion that there was a significant likelihood of conscripts being deployed to the war in Ukraine.

The Higher Administrative Court first reiterated the criteria of inhuman or degrading treatment, according to national legal framework on asylum and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It affirmed that inhuman treatment within the meaning of Section 4 (1) of the Asylum Law exists if a person is intentionally subjected to severe mental or physical pain or suffering of exceptional intensity or duration which is completely incompatible with the general principles of humanity, without the treatment reaching the intensity that characterises torture. Also, degrading treatment exists if it inflicts feelings of fear, pain or inferiority that are likely to humiliate or degrade the victim and possibly break their psychological or moral resistance. In essence, inhuman or degrading treatment requires that the suffering or humiliation inflicted exceeds at least the level unavoidable in any given form of justifiable treatment or punishment. Under Article 3 of the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR, the actual risk is the determining factor and implies that, upon a comprehensive assessment, circumstances are weighted and balanced to establish whether the risk of serious harm is considered highly probable in case of a return.

The Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt upheld the appeal and found that the Administrative Court in Magdeburg had wrongly ordered the BAMF to grant the applicant subsidiary protection. The court found that, based on the available and decisive evidence at the time of its decision, it could not be established that the applicant would face a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Asylum Act upon return to the Russian Federation.

Furthermore, the court stated that the applicant was not likely to face inhuman or degrading treatment for draft evasion. While he might be subject to prosecution for failing to perform military service, the expected penalty alone was insufficient to reach the threshold of such treatment. In reaching this  conclusion, the court relied on various sources, including: Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum, Country Information from the State Documentation, Russian Federation, 23 December 2025; Danish Immigration Service, Report Russia - Conscription, March 2025; Finnish Immigration Service, report Russia / The situation of conscripts and mobilisation, 22 August 2024; EUAA, COI Query - Russian Federation: Major developments regarding human rights and military service, November 2024 and EUAA, COI Report - The Russian Federation: Country Focus, December 2025.

The court found it extremely unlikely that, due to draft evasion, the applicant would face a prison sentence upon return, without probation, and therefore he would not be at risk of detention involving possible inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, the court stated that the applicant's fear of being conscripted into compulsory military service upon return to Russia dis not establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment with the level of probability required for subsidiary protection. Although conscription was likely, there was insufficient risk of inhuman treatment during military service, deployment to the Ukraine war, or of being forced into a military contract thereafter.

On refusal of military service, the court found it unlikely that the applicant would be able to successfully refuse compulsory military service in the Russian Federation, relying on the above-mentioned sources. Citing the Danish Immigration Service report "Russia - Conscription", March 2025, the court held that the Russian Constitution guarantees the right to conscientious objections to military service and citizens have the right to request ACS if military service contradicts their beliefs or religion. The ACS existed in Russia for over 20 years and requires a specific procedure to apply for it, but in general it is not accepted by the Russian society, and it is hard to prove eligibility and to obtain it. According to the EUAA report of December 2025, access to ACS has become increasingly difficult in some cities and military recruitment offices often reject applications on grounds of missed application deadlines (which account for the majority of rejections), insufficient or incorrect information, previous evasion of military service, and a lack of suitable or available positions. However, the Higher Administrative Court found insufficiently likely that the applicant would experience inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment while performing compulsory basic military service, particularly in light of the general conditions faced by conscripts in the Russian armed forces.

The Higher Administrative Court further held that there were also no substantial grounds to assume that the applicant, as a conscript, would face a real risk of serious harm in the form of inhuman or degrading treatment in connection with Russia's war against Ukraine under Section 4(1)(2) Asylum Act.

The court reiterated that subsidiary protection cannot be granted based on a risk of injury or death in combat, as such harm would not be directly inflicted by a “state actor” in the legal sense, but only indirectly through the opposing armed forces. In addition, inhuman or degrading treatment required intentional conduct by a relevant actor under Section 4(3) in connection with Section 3c Asylum Act. The court found that these requirements were not met in the present case.

The court noted that, in any case, there was a low probability that the applicant would be deployed to combat operations against Ukrainian forces during compulsory military service or be required to directly or indirectly participate in war crimes during that time. While the risk would increase if he were stationed near the border region or in Russian-occupied territories, where he might become involved in combat operations potentially involving war crimes, it remained uncertain whether he would be assigned to such areas at all.

Moreover, the court found it unlikely that the applicant would be forcibly obliged to sign a contract during or immediately after compulsory military service and subsequently be deployed in offensive combat operations as such. Based on the country-of-origin information (COI) cited above, the court noted that, while superiors have, in several cases, used various methods to persuade conscripts to sign a military contract, there was no indication on  how many became contract soldiers in the Russian armed forces through coercion, deception, or falsified signatures, or who were treated as such. The court affirmed that the applicant's age is also significant and stated that, at 28-years-old the applicant has significantly more life experience than younger conscripts, which would enable him to assess more critically attempts to persuade him to sign a contract and to make use of at least theoretical options to resist pressure from superiors. 4) Furthermore, the court cited the EUAA report of December 2025 and affirmed that the applicant's Chechen origin would not change the assessment, even though in Chechnya there is a risk of being forcibly recruited for so-called volunteer battalions for deployment in the war in Ukraine outside the regular conscription system. However, the court noted that this risk could be avoided if, upon return to the Russian Federation, the applicant would not travel to Chechnya but instead to another part of the country. The court considered reasonable to expect the applicant to settle in other regions of the country as he previously lived and worked in the Russian Federation outside Chechnya and he also had his parents in city A., outside Chechnya.

The court stated that, while it could not be assumed that men of conscription age would simply relocate their residence from Chechnya to other parts of the Russian Federation to avoid military service, according to a report of 23 December 2025 issued by BAMF, the fear of receiving a conscription notice is triggering a migration among young men, resulting in a considerable increase in the number of people leaving Chechnya since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. However, the court found that the applicant did not belong to the group of persons who, according to the BAMF report, are at risk of being taken to Chechnya and potentially deployed from there in the war against Ukraine

Moreover, the court held that, whereas financial incentives often play a role in signing a contract, the overall assessment must take into account the personal circumstances of the applicant, including his age, family and financial status, employment status, the length of his stay in Germany as well as the life experience he has gained as a result of these circumstances. Thus, the court held that during his more than three-year stay in Germany, he was able to inform himself about how conscripts in Russia are pressured into signing military contracts and how to resist such pressure, making it more likely that he could withstand such coercion.

Lastly, the court found that the applicant did not present any evidence to substantiate that the requirements for a deportation ban under Section 60(5) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Article 3 of the ECHR would be met. In addition, the applicant did not assert any apparent legitimate interest which would justify reducing the duration of the entry and residence ban.