The case concerned a Congolese national who had sought asylum in Switzerland. A Eurodac hit showed that she had previously been registered for irregular entry in Croatia. The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) thus sent a take charge request to Croatia, under Article 13(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, which was accepted.

The SEM dismissed her application for international protection and decided to transfer her to Croatia. The applicant appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court.

She claimed that her right to be heard had been violated, since her Dublin interview was conducted without the presence of her legal representative. The court dismissed her claim, noting that she had expressively accepted that the interview be held without her legal representative. Furthermore, the legal representative had been sent the minutes of the interview and had had more than five months before the decision was issued to give their opinion on the contents of the minutes. The legal representative had not raised any objections during this period.

The applicant also claimed that she was a victim of human trafficking in Croatia, and that this had caused her mental illness and that she had other health problems. Furthermore, she claimed that there were systemic deficiencies in the reception system and the asylum procedure in Croatia and that she would be at risk of an illegal pushback upon return to the country.

The court noted that there was, on the basis of available information and findings, no substantiated link between Dublin returnees and pushbacks in Croatia. The court also noted that the applicant had only partially used the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) health care that was made available to her.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the conditions in Croatia were such that they could lead to a breach of Article 3 or 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights or Article 3 of the ECHR. The applicant had not presented individual circumstances which could justify the assumption that Croatia would not provide her the minimum living conditions set out in the recast Reception Conditions Directive. Moreover, in the event of a temporary denial of reception conditions, she could, if necessary, contact the local authorities and demand, by means of legal proceedings, the reception conditions to which she was entitled.

The court also found that the applicant did not suffer from such health issues that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR for medical reasons if she was transferred to Croatia.

Finally, the court found no reason, including with regard to the applicant’s claim of having been subject to human trafficking, to apply the discretionary clause, Article 17(1), to accept responsibility of the applicant.

The court thus dismissed the applicant’s appeal in its entirety.