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

The applicant, Syrian citizen of Kurdish origin, applied in the Czech Republic for international protection. He came to the Czech Republic from Greece and Turkey. The administrative authority (the Ministry of the Interior) thus requested Greece to take the applicant back on the basis of Art. 18(1)(d) of the Dublin III Regulation. However, Greece denied the request notifying that Greek authorities had already granted the applicant asylum, so the Dublin III Regulation was not applicable. The Ministry of the Interior terminated the proceeding and declared the application inadmissible according to Art. 33(2)(a) of the Procedures Directive due to already granted protection in another EU state. 

The applicant challenged the administrative decision before the Regional Court in Ostrava arguing that the Ministry of the Interior failed to deal with the current security situation in Syria. The Regional Court dismissed his action.

Subsequently, the applicant filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court ("the Court") dismissed his action with regard to Art. 33 of the Procedures Directive that establishes exception to the general rule that content of all applications should be examined on the substance (recital 43 of the directive). In case the international protection was granted in another Member State, the administrative authority is not required to examine whether the applicant qualifies for international protection. However, the Court also referred to the principle of mutual trust and judgment of the CJEU Ibrahim and others (C‑297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17 and C-438/17). It stressed that given the general and absolute nature of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, the administrative authority is obliged to consider and eliminate the risk of violating this prohibition at all times and in all circumstances, even if such a risk arises after the termination of asylum proceedings, and in case of any doubts, such consideration of the risks should be explicitly included into the administrative decision’s reasoning. Despite the existence of the Common European Asylum System and the principle of mutual trust between Member States, the authorities cannot disregard the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. There must be a real and proven risk of such treatment (Art. 4 of the Charter). However, it is up to the applicant to raise any doubts about possible risks, particularly during a personal interview.

However, the applicant did not allege anything specific in this regard and did not provide any evidence to prove the risks of inhuman or degrading treatment in Greece due to extreme material deprivation or other inhuman situation. The situation in Greece is generally considered improved. Given the applicant's passivity and the principle of mutual trust between the Member States, it was thus not necessary for the Ministry of the Interior to expressly evaluate conditions of recognized refugees in Greece and whether they face serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in its decision terminating asylum proceedings of the applicant. The cassation complaint was dismissed.