The applicant is a Serbian national who requested international protection in Luxembourg in 2015. His application was considered implicitly withdrawn as he failed to attend the personal interview. In 2017 the applicant was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment for for attempted stealing through breaking and entering. On 10 March 2020 he applied again for international protection. On 13 March 2020 the applicant was interviewed by an agent of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum and on 21 February 2021 he was supposed to have a second meeting but the applicant refused to attend. On 2 March 2021 the application was dismissed as unfounded in an accelerated procedure and he was ordered to leave the territory. The applicant appealed arguing that Serbia is not a safe country of origin as he would not benefit from the authorities' protection as he had received death threats from a gang involved with drugs trafficking and the local authorities were unable to protect him.

The Administrative Tribunal first looked at the time limit for deciding on the application for international protection, noting that it had been lodged on 10 March 2020 and a decision was pronounced on 2 March 2021, outside of the time limit of two months provided by the law for the accelerated procedure, if the time limit would be calculated from the date of lodging of the application. However, the court noted that the two months time limit should be calculated form the date of the second interview to which the applicant refused to attend. Thus, on this point, the court decided that the decision was issued within the 2 months time limit provided for the accelerated procedure.

Regarding the refusal of the application on the basis of the fact that Serbia is a safe country of origin for the applicant, the court noted that, by regulation of 21 December 2007, Serbia was designated as safe country of origin. In addition, the fact that the regulation designates a country as safe is not sufficient to justify the use of an accelerated procedure on its own, given that this provision obliges the Minister to proceed to an individual examination of his application for international protection and it is the Minister's responsibility to assess whether the applicant has not given him serious reasons to believe that Serbia is not a safe country of origin because of the personal situation. The court held that in this case, the analysis of the situation described by the applicant does not allow the identification of any convincing elements to overturn the presumption emerging from the inclusion of Serbia in the list of safe countries. The applicant has not provided any valid reason that his most basic rights would be violated if he returned to his country of origin. Furthermore, for a lack of protection in the country of origin to be accepted, it is necessary that the person concerned has reasonably attempted to obtain this protection. In this case, the applicant did not seek the help of the police by filing a complaint following the second assault he had suffered. The applicant has therefore not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that in general, the Serbian police is powerless or unwilling to offer protection and the only claim that the Serbian police would not intervene in drug trafficking cases without being corroborated by any objective and tangible element, is insufficient to conclude otherwise. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal.