The applicant, a national of Ghana, applied for international protection in Slovenia. The Ministry of the Interior rejected the applicant’s request for international protection since there was a match in the EURODAC database, and Croatia was deemed as the responsible Member State for processing the application under the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Court and requested a temporary injunction, but the court denied both the appeal and the injunction and agreed with the Ministry of the Interior that Croatia was the responsible Member State.

The applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court arguing that the Administrative Court failed to consider the numerous judicial practices of foreign national courts regarding the handing over of migrants or applicants to Croatia contained in the EUAA Asylum Report 2022, as well as the judgement of the ECtHR in the MH and Others v Croatia of 18 November 2021. The applicant also insisted that he submitted evidence demonstrating that Croatia has systemic deficiencies and that he should not be sent to Croatia without a guarantee. Furthermore, the applicant contended that the court should consider the fact that he had already been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in Croatia. 

The applicant further filed a supplement to the appeal, stating that it had been six months since the application for admission was delivered to Croatia. As the deadline for his surrender had passed, the applicant stated that Slovenia was now responsible for processing his asylum application. In addition, the applicant also submitted a request for a temporary injunction, asking the court to suspend the execution of the challenged judgement until a final decision was reached.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal on the grounds of the supplement to the appeal as according to Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, if the transfer does not take place within the six months’ time limit, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obligations to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall then be transferred to the requesting Member State. 

The court dismissed the arguments based on national jurisprudence of handing over of migrants or applicants to Croatia, the failure of the court to consider the fact that the applicant had previously been subjected to humiliating and cruel treatment, and the failure to rule on the ECtHR's decision in the case of MH and others v Croatia as unjustified.

The Supreme Court overturned the Administrative Court's ruling, ordering the Migration Department to re-examine the applicant’s request for international protection, as well as check the expiry of the deadline for handing over the applicant to Croatia. 

The court further rejected the applicant's request for a temporary injunction holding that an applicant with a favourable decision cannot improve his legal position with a temporary injunction.