An applicant sought to appeal the Court of First Instance’s ruling that the Ministry of the Interior was allowed to detain the applicant for handover in accordance with Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation. As the applicant had previously requested asylum in Romania, the case was being processed under the Dublin III Regulation, which provides in Article 28(2) that if a person poses a significant flight risk, they may be placed in detention to secure transfer proceedings.

The Supreme Court argued that the applicant's failure to wait for a decision on his application in Romania was insufficient justification for detention on its own. The applicant arranged to be taken to Austria by a smuggler in Serbia but was apprehended by Romanian authorities before applying for asylum there. He tried to reach Austria by crossing Slovenia, but the Slovenian police caught him. Considering this evidence and the fact that the applicant proceeded on his way to Austria after being detained by Romanian authorities, it was clear that Austria was the applicant’s final destination. According to the court, this warranted a genuine immediate risk of escape justifying detention. 

The Supreme Court argued that since Slovenia had not transposed the fourth paragraph of Article 8 of the Reception Conditions Directive, according to which Member States ensure that alternatives to detention are laid down, the state could not use other alternative measures. The court considered the possibility of milder measures of mandatory detention in the area, but since the applicant had fled Romania, it was concluded that it would not ensure the effective implementation of the Dublin III Regulation. These reasons led to the appeal being denied and the disputed verdict being upheld.