​​​​​​​​

According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

“The Constitutional Court, in examining the constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Supreme Court, reiterated the position of the Supreme Court that the argument with which the applicant in the specific case tried to prove the existence of systemic deficiencies in relation to the asylum system (i.e. the previous conduct of the Croatian police officers after the border crossing between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia and potential deficiencies in the processing of foreigners in Croatia), cannot be legally decisive and, without other indications of systemic deficiencies, cannot significantly influence the decision to transfer the applicant from Slovenia to Croatia based on Dublin III Regulation. Since there were no COI that Dublin returnees are treated inhumanely during the transfer or after the transfer in the accommodation centres in the Republic of Croatia or that the requests for international protection of Dublin returnees are not processed in accordance with EU law, the Constitutional Court decided that the constitutional complaint was unfounded.”

According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

“Referring to judgments of the CJEU C-601/15 (J. N.), C-233/18 (Haqbin) and C-422/21 (TO) the Administrative Court ruled that if a certain measure against the applicant aims merely as a sanction for the applicant's past conduct, deprivation of liberty under Article 8(3) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU is not allowed. Deprivation of liberty must necessarily mean a last resort, a necessary and proportionate way of deterring the danger for public safety in the future. Referring to judgments of the CJEU in cases C-249/13 (Boudjlida) and C-277/11 (M) the court stated that in a situation where the procedure for deprivation of liberty is ongoing due to a one-off incident with the security guards of the Asylum Home, in which there was shoving or pushing between several people for a short period of time and where there is no other documentary evidence of the applicant's individual behaviour during the incident or other signs of dangerous behaviour on the part of the applicant, the applicant must be given a possibility to effectively defend himself before the detention order is issued. The court also stated that there is no sufficient factual basis for the conclusion that the applicant represents a present and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interest of society and ordered applicant's immediate release.”