The case concerned a minor applicant who was initially rejected asylum application, but was granted subsidiary protection. In the first appeal, the administrative court partly returned the case for re-examination. The administrative court held that the applicant expressly challenged the part of the decision regarding refugee status and the fact that the determining authority did not conduct a personal interview at first instance procedure. The administrative court stated that the Ministry of the Interior committed a material breach of the rules of procedure by not having conducted a personal as provided by the International Protection Act.

The Ministry of the Interior appealed against the decision and claimed that there was no obligation to conduct a personal interview, but it could be omitted if based on the evidence international protection can be granted. The Ministry of the Interior alleged that there was no breach of law since the applicant was granted subsidiary protection, thus the personal interview could have been omitted.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that legislation provides that minor applicants for international protection need adequate level of protection and special protection of their rights and interests, this being a duty of all competent authorities. However, the Supreme Court noted that the applicant had a legal representative and a guardian at the time of lodging the application, that an interview was conducted with the applicant at the time of lodging the application on all relevant facts and there is no indication in the file that the applicant was not aware of facts or questions or that he was prevented to provide relevant information or facts.

The Supreme Court held that omission of the personal interview, either under the International Protection Act or under the General Administrative Procedure Act does not constitute an absolute material breach of the procedural rules. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that the omission constitutes a relative material breach of the rules of the law, about which it is necessary to determine whether it has affected or been able to affect the lawfulness and correctness of the decision in the case. The Supreme Court noted that there are no indications in the case that the omission of the personal interview altered the possibility of the applicant to provide information or facts and that it was not demonstrated, contrary to the findings of the lower court, that this procedural shortcoming affected the outcome of the decision in the case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Ministry of the Interior and held that the proceedings before the Ministry of the Interior were correct and lawful, but set aside the lower court decision and referred the case back to the Administrative Court for re-assessment of the case in full jurisdiction, also in light of the fact that the applicant is no longer a minor and that the situation in his country of origin, Syria, might have changed. Since the Supreme Court has no competence to establish facts and circumstances at first instance, the case was sent back to the Administrative Court.