A Nigerian national first lodged an application for international protection in Italy, where he benefited from regular reception conditions. The Italian authorities rejected his application and the applicant moved on to France and lodged a new application there, where he said he lived on the streets for three years. After his application was rejected by the French authorities, the applicant made his way to Portugal and applied for international protection again. The Portuguese authorities noted that, under the Dublin III Regulation, Portugal was not responsible for assessing his case, but Italy was as he had first entered EU territory there. The Portuguese authorities, before ordering his Dublin transfer to Italy, interviewed the applicant to determine whether the reception conditions he faced there were compatible with Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter. However, Italy rejected Portugal's request to take charge. Consequently, Portugal sent France a request to take charge, which was accepted. However, this request was sent without investigating whether the conditions faced by the applicant in France could violate the aforementioned provisions; the SEF simply transposed the interview conducted about reception conditions in Italy, to France. Therefore, the applicant contested this decision before the South Central Administrative Court, which ruled in his favour.

The Ministry of Internal Administration appealed against this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the applicant had not established that he had actually lived on the streets while in France. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the Ministry's appeal, considering that the SEF had failed to conduct the appropriate investigations to ensure that the applicant's reception conditions, upon his Dublin transfer to France, would not violate Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter.