Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

​​

28/05/2026
DE: The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg ruled that conscripts in the Russian Federation are not generally entitled to subsidiary protection solely on the basis of their expected military service.
28/05/2026
DE: The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg ruled that conscripts in the Russian Federation are not generally entitled to subsidiary protection solely on the basis of their expected military service.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Information and Analysis Sector (IAS)
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR)
Reference
Germany, Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht/Verwaltungsgerichtshöf), Applicant v Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge‚ BAMF), OVG 12 B 7/24 , 28 May 2026. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=6017
Case history
Other information
Abstract

A Russian national born in 2004 was granted subsidiary protection by the Administrative Court of Berlin, which found that there was a real likelihood that he would be unable to resist pressure to enlist as a so-called 'contract soldier'. In this position, he would face deployment in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and, as a consequence, a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, including the danger of being killed, injured, or compelled to participate in violations of international law. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) appealed the judgment before the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg.


The Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg overturned the contested judgment, stating that it was not sufficiently convinced that the applicant would face a real and serious likelihood, anywhere in the Russian Federation, of being forced against his will to become a so-called 'contract soldier' and thereby suffer serious harm that would justify the grant of subsidiary protection. The court found that, as a conscript, he was not at risk of being deployed to Ukraine and that a one-year compulsory military service, in itself, did not create a real likelihood of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the applicant did not prove a sufficient and likely risk that would justify a prohibition of deportation.


Country of Decision
Germany
Court Name
DE: Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht/Verwaltungsgerichtshöf)
Case Number
OVG 12 B 7/24
Date of Decision
28/05/2026
Country of Origin
Russia
Keywords
Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription
Subsidiary Protection
Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
RETURN