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 the Member State responsible to examine the application for international protection. The Administrative Court also rejected a request for a temporary injunction. 

The Administrative Court held that Croatia had assumed responsibility for assessing the applicant's request for international protection. It considered 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 appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the grounds that Croatia's asylum system was fundamentally flawed and that his interaction with the Croatian police should have been taken into consideration. He claimed that the police prohibit applicants from applying for international protection in Croatia. He also argued that he was unable to communicate with the police, that they denied his request to apply for asylum, that they failed to explain the asylum procedure and the contents of the document they handed him, and that he did not have an interpreter or legal representative. He further alleged that in Croatia, he endured torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment. He accused the Administrative Court of failing to act on the provided evidence, which was meant to support the credibility of his claims on the actions of the Croatian police officers. Additionally, he disagreed with the Administrative Court that he did not need to have any special guarantees that he will be treated fairly in Croatia in line with his rights under Article 4 of the EU Charter. 

The Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on the grounds that the Administrative Court had correctly determined that there was no real risk that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter. The Supreme Court ruled that the applicant's claims regarding the mistreatment by Croatian police officers in connection with crossing the Croatian-Bosnian border and his treatment by the police, along with the reports submitted by non-governmental organisations, various articles and opinions, and court decisions of lower courts of other countries in individual cases, did not demonstrate systemic deficiencies within the asylum system in Croatia which would suspend the transfer under the Dublin III Regulation.