In this case, the state filed an appeal against a judgment in which the Court of First Instance overturned a ruling and granted an applicant's request for the issuance of a temporary injunction, releasing the applicant from being detained under the Dublin III Regulation. The second paragraph of Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation, which provides that a person poses a significant flight risk and may be placed in detention to secure transfer proceedings, served as the foundation for the reasoning of the challenged verdict. Despite using the Eurodac system, the court argued that the authorities had failed to start the correct procedures for the applicant's readmission to one of the countries the applicant had previously applied in, and if so, to which one.

Invoking the improper use of substantive law, the state appealed the decision. According to the state, it is permitted to request an urgent response in cases of detention under the third paragraph of Article 28. Citing case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the state claimed that it can detain a person first and thereafter request a response for admission and readmission. It was further explained, the application for readmission was submitted on the same day that the applicant's freedom of movement was restricted.

As the state authorities had not indicated whether they had readmitted the applicant to any of the Member States, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of First Instance had wrongly judged that the reasons to detain the applicant were flawed. Before the decision on detention, the state is not required to complete the required administrative procedures, that is to submit a request for admission or re-admission, but it must do so within one month. Therefore, the state cannot be held accountable for not disclosing whether they had previously completed the procedures when deciding to detain the applicant. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, annulled the challenged judgment of the Administrative Court of 8 December 2021, and returned the case to the lower court for a new procedure.