The applicant contested the decision taken to detain him at a designated reception centre from 27 February 2021 till latest on 27 May 2021, for the purposes of implementing the return order and because the applicant submitted a request for reopening the procedure for recognition of international protection only to delay or hinder the removal. 

By decision of 15 March 2021, the Administrative Court referred the case to the CJEU and asked the following questions: (1) Is Article 8 (3) (d) of the Reception Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase 'including this' explicitly includes among the objective criteria the fact that' the applicant already had the opportunity to initiate the asylum procedure '? (2) If the answer to that question is in the negative, whether Article 8 (3) (d) of the Reception Directive II must be interpreted as meaning that, in those circumstances, a restriction on movement is permissible only on the basis of pre-established objective criteria and a prior finding; that the applicant has already had the opportunity to apply for international protection, on the basis of which it could be concluded that there is a reasonable presumption that the said application was made only because of the suspension or aggravation of the return decision?

The CJEU ruled on the questions referred by order of 3 June 2021 in Case C-186/21 JA v. The Republic of Slovenia: "The first subparagraph of Article 8 (3) (d) of the Reception Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the applicant for international protection has already had the opportunity to initiate the asylum procedure is an objective criterion within the meaning of that provision."

The present case consists in the reopening of the case that was submitted to the CJEU.  The Ministry of the Interior informed the court on 14 June 2021, that on 19 March 2021 the applicant had arbitrarily left the asylum home in Ljubljana and had not returned since. The information was also confirmed by the applicant's lawyer.

The Administrative Court rejected the complaint as inadmissible for lack of interest from the applicant in conducting the administrative proceedings since he left the asylum centre and had never returned.