An Algerian national appealed the Court of First Instance’s ruling that the Ministry of the Interior had the right to detain the applicant to establish the facts that formed the basis of his asylum request. Due to the applicant's history of abruptly leaving Slovenia twice before, the court ruled that there was a legitimate concern that he would flee again, leading to his detention.

The applicant appealed the decision, claiming that the court disregarded his claims that he is not capable of forming a desire to escape due to serious psychological issues. At the first hearing, the applicant had requested a psychological examination, but the court rejected his request. As a means of justifying detention, the Ministry of the Interior stated that the fourth paragraph of Article 8 of the Reception Conditions Directive according to which member states ensure that alternatives to detention are laid down in national law has not yet been incorporated into Slovenian legislation.

The Supreme Court first noted that the state of health of the applicant forms part of of the assessment of the Reception Conditions Directive (recast). Citing the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court endorsed the notion that detention should only be used as a last resort. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the measure of detention is also disproportionate to the interference with the health of the applicant for international protection, and if its execution deteriorates the health of the applicant, it is a violation of the absolute prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment set forth in Article 4 of the European Union Charter on Fundamental Rights.

In addition, the court noted that if the court of first instance, when determining the correct factual situation after the main hearing, only relies on the facts and evidence that the defendant has already established and presented, and bases its decision on their different assessment, then the subject of the Supreme Court's appellate review focuses only on whether the assessment made is logical, consistent and convincing enough that the decision of the court of first instance cannot be considered arbitrary. 

The court ruled that the court is required to comply with the law of the European Union, in accordance with the interpretation of the Reception Conditions Directive and national law that protects fundamental rights, and general principles of European law. These reasonings led the Supreme Court to uphold the appeal, annul the judgement of the Administrative Court of 8 December 2021, and return the case to the lower court for a new procedure.