A national from Lithuania applied for international protection in Austria on 15 April 2019. The applicant claimed he was a lawyer and human rights activist who had defaced a plaque honouring a General who was responsible for the murder of 14,000 Jews, 22 of whom were related to him. The applicant stated that he was detained by the police for 54 hours where he was beaten and fed pork that he was unable to eat as he is Jewish. He was released and fined 33,000 euros to cover the cost of the plaque's repair. The police said he would be arrested if he did not pay the fine. Additionally, a Nazi group in Vilnius made death threats against the applicant. He decided to leave Lithuania as a result.

The Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA) rejected the application for international protection on 20 June 2019. The applicant filed an appeal against the decision with the Federal Administrative Court who dismissed the appeal as unfounded without holding an oral hearing. The court stated that the applicant is an EU citizen and Lithuania is considered a safe country of origin. Lithuania had ratified all subsequent treaties since it had joined the EU. The preamble to Protocol No. 24 to the EU Treaty on the Granting of Asylum to Nationals of Member States of the EU, states that the EU is to recognise the rights, freedoms, and principles set forth in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and respect fundamental rights under Article 6(1) of the Treaty of the EU, supports the above. As an EU member, Lithuania complies with the EU law's definitions of democracy and a state of law. Lithuania was also not the subject of any pending infringement proceedings. According to Protocol No 24, it follows that an application for asylum must be regarded as unfounded. In addition, point (d) of the Protocol allows for an individual review of a protection request; however, before a more thorough investigation is conducted, it is necessary to ascertain whether the application has enough substance that an examination is required to comply with Austria's obligations under the Geneva Convention. To do so, the applicant must demonstrate that they are a refugee in their country of origin.

The Federal Administrative Court ruled on 16 June 2020 (judgment Z G311 2221582-1/9E) that it could not be proven that the applicant would face persecution in Lithuania as defined by the Geneva Convention. The applicant had filed a formal complaint about his treatment when he was arrested, and no judicial ruling had been made yet. Additionally, he has the right to file an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights if the issue was not resolved. For the reasons outlined in the Geneva Convention, the applicant was not unlawfully detained or arbitrarily punished, especially considering that the punishment was neither disproportionate nor specifically targeted against Jews. As a result, neither point (d), nor situations referred to in points (a) to (c) of the Protocol were met. The EU Member States are therefore not authorised to process the case, and the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum was right to reject the asylum application.

The applicant appealed the decision and claimed that the constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment between foreigners and the failure to hold a hearing violated Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant argued that the Federal Administrative Court would have reached a different conclusion if it had looked at the plight of Jews in Lithuania and human rights violations by Lithuanian authorities. The applicant cited recent country reports, including one by the UN Human Rights Committee in 2018 that highlighted the troubling situation for Jews in Lithuania and expressed concern about the potential effects of redress mechanisms for Jews who have been the targets of hate crimes and hate speech. The applicant concluded by arguing that crucial evidence was overlooked, and the facts of the case were not considered. If the Federal Administrative Court had considered the applicants’ accusations and assessed the most recent reports, it would have ruled under point (d) of the Protocol.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal and did not raise any concerns about the legality of the legislation supporting the contested judgement with regards to Protocol No. 24. The court made no objections to the Federal Administrative Courts’ assumption that that the conditions outlined in points (a) to (c) of the protocol had not been met from the beginning. Point (d) gave the applicant a chance to disprove the assumption that his request for asylum was unfounded, but he was unable to explain in detail why he was unable to receive protection from the Lithuanian authorities. In light of this, the Federal Administrative Court is not required to conduct an oral hearing, and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights had not been violated. The Constitutional Court further ruled that there had been no violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights as a result.