The Ministry of the Interior appealed an interlocutory decree from the Court of First Instance in which an applicant alleged that between 14 November 2017 and 10 April 2018, his rights to international protection, including the right to accommodation and the right to health care, were unlawfully violated prior to the execution of the decision on the transfer of the applicant to Croatia. The rights of the applicant, according to state authorities, had been respected. Based on the Administrative Court's 2017 ruling, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2018, it was determined that state authorities had failed to give the applicant the material reception conditions, and medical care stipulated in the Reception Conditions Directive (recast). The High Court of Ljubljana noted that although the Ministry of Health covered the costs of the applicant's treatment in a psychiatric clinic from 17 November 2017 to 19 November 2017 and his card was not taken away, the applicant was told on 14 November 2017 that he no longer had the status of an applicant for international protection, that he must vacate the room occupied in the asylum home and to return the card of international protection, and he was subsequently deleted from the register of applicants for international protection on 19 November 2017. The High Court concluded that the court of first instance correctly noted that the applicant was not guaranteed the right to accommodation and the right to medical care.

In addition, the Ministry of the Interior also claimed before the High Court that the court of first instance did not make a correct application of substantive law, namely the Dublin III Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive, from which it follows, that the decision-making process on the application for international protection is not finished with the surrender decision and applicants for international protection must continue to be guaranteed their respective rights. In addition, the Court of Justice of the EU, in case C-179/11, Cimade and GISTI, explicitly stated that the requirements from Article 1 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, according to which it is necessary to respect human dignity, oppose the exclusion of an applicant for international protection (even if only temporarily the period before it would actually be handed over to the responsible Member State) from the protection of the minimum rights provided by the Reception Conditions Directive.

Thus, the High Court ruled that in this case, during the above-mentioned period, the state had violated the applicant's fundamental human rights, specifically the right to human dignity protected by Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and dismissed the appeal while upholding the interlocutory ruling.