JB, the applicant, was rejected asylum in November 2015 and an expulsion order was issued against in December 2017, the order became final on 9 April 2019. In May 2019, the case was submitted for enforcement of expulsion and in March 2021 the applicant was detained based on a risk that he would abscond and in preparation to implement the expulsion. In April 2021, the applicant invoked impediments to enforcement as he applied and was granted a re-examination of his application for residence and work permit. The applicant was detained again based on the Aliens Act, contested the detention decision and the Administrative Court in Stockholm allowed the appeal and overturned the detention decision. The Swedish Migration Agency appealed against and argued that since the application for residence permit has not been examined by final decision, the applicant is covered by Article 3(1) of the Receiving Directive. The Swedish Migration Agency alleged that the Administrative Migration Court has wrongly stated that the Reception Directive does not apply when a new examination has been granted under Chapter 12, Section 19 of the Aliens Act.

The Migration Court of Appeal firstly analysed whether the Aliens Act is a basis to detain a person who has been granted a new case examination and if the EU law provides for a decision on detention. The Court found that a new examination of a residence permit constitutes a temporary impediment to enforcement and that it was a question of preparing or implementing the execution of a deportation decision.

The Migration Court of Appeal further stated that the application for asylum had been previously rejected and there was a risk of absconding and therefore a reason for detention under the Aliens Act. However, the Court held that the provisions of the Reception Directive were applicable to JB and that the conditions for detention provided by Article 8 (3) (e) have to be met. It noted that an applicant can only be detained if it is necessary for the protection of national security or public order, which must be assessed on an individual basis. The applicant had previously been charged with theft and minor drug offences, which the Court determined could not be seen as a real and sufficiently serious threat nor could his personal behaviour constitute a real and current risk to public order. Consequently, the Migration Court of Appeal held that there were no reasons to maintain the applicant in detention under the Article 8 (3) of the Reception Conditions Directive, or under the Aliens Act. The appeal of the Swedish Migration Agency was rejected.