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 applicant filed an appeal against the decision before the Administrative Court, who rejected the appeal, but granted the applicant's request for a temporary injunction, so that the decision was postponed until the final outcome of the administrative dispute.

The Administrative Court ruled that Croatia had accepted the request to readmit the applicant as an applicant under Article 18(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, with the justification that the applicant had left Croatia before the actual submission of the request, and based on fingerprints from the Eurodac database, the applicant had already been entered into the records as an applicant for international protection in Croatia. The court determined that the applicant had made clear his desire to apply for international protection, and as a result, Croatia was deemed to be responsible under Article 20(5) of the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant further did not say anything that would indicate that he had a negative encounter with the Croatian police or did not demonstrate the existence of systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Croatia.

The applicant filed an appeal against the decision before the Supreme Court on the grounds that substantive law had been applied improperly and the facts had been incorrectly established. The applicant argued that it could not be determined that he had declared his intention to seek international protection in Croatia.

The Supreme Court clarified, however, that it follows from CJEU case law that a citizen of a third country acquires the status of an applicant for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive when he "submits" an application for international protection, and it suffices that he expresses his desire to apply for international protection to "another authority". It further added that in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph of the Revised Asylum Procedures Directive, the Administrative Court correctly based its assessment of the legal basis for the applicant's surrender under the Dublin III Regulation on information from the Eurodac database and Croatia's response regarding the applicant's readmission under the Dublin procedure. The appeal was thus rejected as unfounded, and the contested judgment was upheld.