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 the applicant was to be handed over to Croatia, as under the Dublin III Regulation, Croatia was considered the Member State responsible for examining the application. The Administrative Court also rejected a request for a temporary injunction. 

The Administrative Court found that the applicant's claims were insufficient to conclude that he would suffer inhumane or degrading treatment if he was sent to Croatia. The applicant only interacted with the police, who reportedly mistreated him, but he did not encounter the Ministry of the Interior, who was in charge of processing requests for international protection. The court determined that there were no barriers to the applicant's transfer because neither the asylum procedure, nor the reception conditions, would run the risk of violating 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 evaluating the claim that the allegations of systemic flaws in Croatia's asylum system were unfounded.

The applicant appealed the decision before the Supreme Court on the grounds that there were systematic deficiencies in Croatia’s asylum system and that he would face inhumane or degrading treatment in the framework of the general prohibition on non-refoulement. He argued that the police procedure and international protection procedure were not separate because the police were part of the Ministry of the Interior. 

The applicant also filed an appeal against the decision to reject the issuance of a temporary injunction. He claimed that the Ministry of the Interior cannot ensure that, in the event of his return to Croatia, he would not come into contact with the Croatian police, who routinely used mental and physical violence against asylum seekers. There was thus a chance of severe and irreparable damage if he was returned.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded, holding that access to the procedure for evaluating an application for international protection is a component of the Common European Asylum System, the police's actions in direct relation to the filing of the intention to file an application for international protection cannot be strictly separated from the procedure after the application for international protection has been filed. However, it does not mean that the applicant would receive such treatment as the applicant was an applicant for international protection. The applicant would be received as an applicant for international protection by officials of the Ministry of the Interior and returned to Croatia in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation. The Supreme Court further rejected the temporary injunction as the request for a temporary injunction could no longer be granted owing to the final administrative decision.