The applicant applied for international protection in Slovenia. The Ministry of the Interior rejected the applicant’s request for international protection and deemed Croatia as the responsible Member State for processing the application. The Republic of Croatia accepted the responsibility for processing the applicant’s request for international protection, and the Ministry of the Interior found that there were no obstacles to transfer the applicant as no circumstances had been established under Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The Ministry took into account reports by the Asylum Information Database (AIDA) and the EUAA, from which it was determined that those handed over to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation are given access to the asylum procedure and required medical care. 

The applicant appealed the decision to the Administrative Court and claimed that he would face torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment in Croatia, citing incidents at the hands of Croatian policemen during his three failed attempts to enter Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, the applicant stated that he would not able to effectively apply for international protection, or that his application would be processed in accordance with the prescribed standards. He stated that on his fourth attempt to enter Croatia he was unsuccessful in applying for asylum as the police did not understand his request and therefore ended up applying for asylum in Slovenia. Additionally, he asserted that Dublin returned applicants do not receive proper medical care and cannot be guaranteed adequate reception conditions in Croatia.  

The Administrative Court upheld the appeal, set aside the disputed judgment, and sent the matter back to the Ministry of the Interior for a new trial (point I of the ruling) in accordance with points 4 and 2 of Article 64 of the Administrative Disputes Act. The applicant's request for the issuing of a temporary injunction was also granted, and the execution of the disputed judgment was postponed until the publication of the court's final verdict in this administrative dispute (point II of the ruling).

The Ministry of the Interior appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but not the decision on the imposed interim injunction. The applicant would be able to apply for international protection, according to the Migration Department, as the applicant would be met by officials of Croatia's Ministry of the Interior, who are competent to decide on international protection. It further argued that there are no systemic deficiencies in Croatia, which has been confirmed by the AIDA and EUAA reports, and asylum seekers in Croatia also have the right to health care.

The appeal by the Ministry of the Interior was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the discovery of shortcomings in the application of procedures in the country with regard to submitted applications for international protection and/or in the accommodation of applicants (living conditions, food, medical care, etc.) is a barrier to transferring an applicant to the responsible Member State. However, violations of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and the recast Reception Conditions Directive, must be systemic.

The court further added that the risk that, in the event of his return to Croatia, the applicant might experience inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter was not found. It also added that, from the perspective of the CJEU, the shortcomings must meet a high standard of seriousness, which is determined in light of all the relevant circumstances (in order to apply Article 4 of the EU Charter).