The case concerned complaints raised by a Moroccan applicant who has been allegedly pushed back at the border with Slovenia and who claimed that he was denied access to the asylum procedure. The Regional Administrative Court of Styria assessed that the return of the applicant to Slovenia had been unlawful and his treatment by police officers (complete undressing and searches) were also unlawful. The applicant had crossed the green border into Austria with a group of other third-country nationals, and when the security guards checked him and the others, he mentioned the word 'asylum' on multiple occasions, but the security officers did not react.

The Administrative Court found that, based on the written recordings of conversations made available by the legal representative (from 4 and 21 October 2020) and other members of the group (from 1 October 2020 and from 20 February 2021) and the statements made by the applicant and others from the group via video call (from 15 January 2021 and 8 March 2021 respectively) it was presumed that the applicant (and others in the group) spoke audibly several times during the checks by the security and border guards and the word "asylum" was used. However, the security guards claimed not to have heard the word "asylum" and they also stated not to have asked the applicant or others in the group of the reason of their crossing into Austria. 

The Administrative Court considered it credible that the applicant, in view of a possible return to Slovenia, made his request for asylum known in an audible manner and that this request was obviously denied by the security authorities. The suspicion expressed by several security bodies interrogated by the Administrative Court that the persons apprehended wanted to travel through Austria was found without any basis, especially because the group was not asked of the reasons for their presence in Austria and the purpose of their crossing.

The Administrative Court also stated that, based on the fact that the applicant had repeatedly used the word “asylum” to the security authorities, he had de facto protection against deportation under Section 12(1) of the Asylum Act of 2005, and thus he could no longer be rejected and returned to Slovenia (according to Section 41 Aliens Police Act). Moreover, in line with previous case law of the same court, it was stated that it is not sufficient, in order to confirm the lawfulness of the rejection and return of the applicant, if the security guard “on its own initiative or in the event of ambiguity" assumes that no application for international protection had been made. On the contrary, the security body has to ascertain whether an application for international protection is being made. In this specific case, however, the use of the word "asylum" did not create any ambiguity and the court considered that the described procedure of interrogation by security officers gave the court the impression that the method of "push-backs" was often used.

In the appeal on points of law, the Supreme Administrative Court first analysed the admissibility and found that no legal questions were raised in the appeal that would be of fundamental importance within the meaning of legal provisions applicable and the request for revision was dismissed.