The Administrative Court rejected an appeal brought against a decision of the Ministry of the Interior to dismiss an applicant’s request for international protection, as under the Dublin III Regulation, Croatia was considered the Member State responsible for the examination of the application. The Administrative Court also rejected a request for a temporary injunction. 

The Administrative Court concluded that there were no barriers to the applicant's transfer because neither the asylum procedure nor the reception conditions would put the applicant in danger of being subject to inhuman or degrading treatment as defined by Article 4 of the EU Charter. Regarding the temporary injunction, the court determined that the applicant had not shown harm that would be challenging to repair because it had already been determined during the course of evaluating the claim that the allegations of systemic flaws in Croatia's asylum system were unfounded.

The applicant challenged the decision on the grounds that the alleged activities of the Croatian police at the Croatian-Bosnian border and at the Croatian police station precluded his return to Croatia in accordance with Article 3 of the Dublin III Regulation. Additionally, the applicant described violent behaviour at the hands of the police in connection with his illegal entry into Croatia.

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that there were no systemic deficiencies in Croatia's asylum system. The Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court consistently evaluated the factual situation and correctly concluded that there were no systemic shortcomings, based on the applicant's claims about the improper conduct of the Croatian police, reports provided by non-governmental organisations, various articles and opinions, and court decisions of lower courts of other countries.