The Slovak authorities rejected the applicant’s request for international protection, and detained him for the purpose of his administrative expulsion. The applicant contested the legality of his detention based on the fact that the authorities failed to indicate the country he was to be returned to and to investigate the existence of obstacles to this expulsion. The applicant also questioned the authorities’ decision not to initiate his Dublin transfer to Greece after taking note of the Eurodac hit showing he had first applied for asylum there. In other proceedings, the applicant also contested the decision ordering his administrative expulsion.

In first instance, the Regional Court of Košice annulled the authorities’ decision to detain the applicant. The court stated that the legal ground for detention was erroneous because the decision ordering the applicant's administrative expulsion was not final yet, and noted the authorities’ failure to apply the Dublin III Regulation. The court did not order the applicant's release due to a risk of absconding and referred the case back to the authorities for further proceedings.

The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision of the Košice Regional Court. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the contested decision, stating that the court of first instance failed to draw the consequences of its own decision by not ordering the applicant’s immediate release. The court recalled that an enforceable expulsion decision does not suffice to ensure the legality of detention, which also requires the fulfilment of the purpose of detention. The case was thus referred back to the Košice Regional Court.

In further proceedings, the authorities confirmed that the applicant could not be returned to his country of origin due to the treatment he would be exposed to, nor to Greece due to systemic failures in its asylum system.* Nevertheless, his detention was extended. The applicant therefore requested the Košice Regional Court to declare his detention unlawful and order his immediate release, in line with the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant argued that the justification for the extension of his detention was an erroneous decision and that the authorities themselves pointed to the unenforceability of his return, therefore demonstrating a breach of article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR.

The Košice Regional Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, annulled the decision based on which he was first detained, as well as the decision extending his detention, and ordered his immediate release.

*This issue was not addressed by the Kosice Regional Court in this decision.