The case concerned a Cuban applicant who was granted subsidiary protection in 2015 on grounds that there was a risk of serious harm because the applicant had exceeded the period of time she had been authorised to leave Cuba for and could therefore face detention and torture or inhuman and degrading treatment upon her return. The Prague City Court did not extend the subsidiary protection on grounds that since it was first granted there had been substantial changes in the migration law and Cuban citizens ability to travel and return to their country, and that they were no longer automatically faced with serious problems and the risk of serious harm. The applicant appealed the decision and noted that the reason for granting subsidiary protection was the political, security and human rights situation in Cuba and this had not been assessed in the decision on the renewal of protection.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the procedure for extending subsidiary protection is based on an assessment of whether the circumstances in respect of which the applicant was granted subsidiary protection have changed significantly and for a long time. It further noted that in the decision of 2015 it was clarified that the reason for applying for international protection was the fear of accomplices to the criminal offence of which she was accused and of being punished for leaving her home country. Considering country of origin information, it had been ruled that the situation in Cuba did not guarantee the safe return of the applicant and the decision was therefore made on grounds of the human rights, political and security situation in the country. Additionally, since the first application, the applicant was now in a position to exceed the authorised period of residence abroad according to Cuban law. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the City Court did not correctly assess the circumstances and referred the case back for consideration of whether the grounds for granting subsidiary protection in 2015 are still present or whether there have been significant changes which no longer justify the need for protection.