An Iranian national of Kurdish ethnicity requested international protection in Austria on 16 December 2022. He claimed that, as a Kurd, he did not enjoy equal rights in Iran and that, after participating in demonstrations against the Iranian regime, the police had searched for him, forcing him into hiding and ultimately fleeing the country. On 11 March 2025, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected his application, issued a return decision and found that his removal to Iran was lawful. By judgment of 2 March 2026, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal as unfounded, finding his account not credible. The court held that there was no evidence of a general life-threatening emergency or an armed conflict in Iran, that the applicant did not face a serious threat to his life or physical integrity, and that he had sufficient means of subsistence in his country of origin. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, arguing that, since 28 February 2026, an international armed conflict had been ongoing following attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran. Referring to information from the International Committee of the Red Cross, he submitted that nearly 1,900 civilians had already been killed and more than 20,000 injured. He argued that, as a civilian, his removal to Iran would expose him to a serious threat to his life or physical integrity as a result of indiscriminate violence in the context of that international armed conflict and that he should therefore, at a minimum, be granted subsidiary protection.

The Constitutional Court found the appeal to be well founded. It held that, in its decision refusing subsidiary protection, the Federal Administrative Court had committed a constitutional error, violating the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment of foreigners. The court observed that the Federal Administrative Court had based its assessment of the situation in the applicant's country of origin on the Country Information of the State Documentation on Iran, COI-CMS, Version 11 (15 January 2026). Relying on that COI, the Federal Administrative Court found no indications of a general situation posing an existential threat, such as widespread famine, natural disasters or other comparable life-threatening events, in Iran. It further found that no protests had been recorded in Iran since 19 January 2026.

The Constitutional Court referred to the State Documentation Briefing Note "US and Israeli Attacks on Iran" (2 March 2026), which reported that the United States and Israel had launched airstrikes against Iran on 28 February 2026 and that, as of 2 March 2026, those attacks were still ongoing. It reproduced passages from the briefing note describing the stated objectives of the military operations, the escalation and regional expansion of the conflict, the reported civilian casualties in Iran, and the widespread internet shutdown, which was considered likely to have restricted the flow of information on the impact of the airstrikes.

Accordingly, the court held that the Federal Administrative Court had failed to fulfil its obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR to assess whether the applicant's return to his country of origin would expose him to a real risk of a violation of those rights, in particular a serious threat to his life or physical integrity as a result of indiscriminate violence in the context of an international armed conflict. It reiterated its established case law that such an assessment must be based, above all, on sufficiently up-to-date COI. The court concluded that the challenged judgment had violated the applicant's constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment of foreigners insofar as it upheld the refusal to grant subsidiary protection, refused to issue a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, confirmed the return decision and the lawfulness of the applicant's removal to Iran, and set a time limit for voluntary departure. It therefore set aside the judgment to that extent. As regards the remainder of the appeal, concerning the refusal to grant refugee status, the court declined to consider the complaint and referred it to the Administrative Court.