On 17 February 2017, the applicant, an Iraqi national, lodged an application for international protection in Greece. The applicant stated that she fled Iraq because of political unrest and war, in addition to the fact that her spouse sold alcohol and faced threats because this is illegal in Iraq. During the personal interview, the applicant stated that she had attempted suicide and was having psychological issues because of her marriage. 

The application was deemed admissible by the Regional Office of Lesvos. The application for international protection was channelled through the accelerated procedure, as Türkiye could not be regarded as a safe third country for the applicant, as she had no connection to the country and it was considered that the procedure should be continued in Greece. The applicant claimed to be a victim of psychological abuse. The psychiatrist's testimony supported her claims, stating that she needed round-the-clock supervision and that she exhibited signs of depression, insomnia, eating disorders, outbursts of rage, and suicidal thoughts. In addition to receiving the proper medical attention and psychological assistance, it was requested that the applicant be submitted to a competent authority that would confirm her vulnerability. 

The Regional Asylum Office of Lesvos referred her application for processing through the normal process, due to the applicant's vulnerability. The Regional Asylum Office of Lesvos rejected the applications request for asylum as it determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for international protection.

The applicant appealed the decision and asked the 2nd Appeals Committee to review her application for international protection. The applicant was recognised by the 2nd Appeals Committee as vulnerable. However, the Committee rejected the appeal after conducting an examination of the material provided as it concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements for refugee status since her claims of individual persecution upon return were unsubstantiated.

The applicant appealed the decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Piraeus which upheld the appeal. The court determined that the case was forwarded to the regular procedure due to the applicant's vulnerability, but she was never asked to reevaluate her claim based on the guarantees of the regular procedure. These guarantees included a longer time frame, the opportunity to obtain legal aid and an examination by an Asylum Service vulnerability officer. The court noted that the interview was carried out by a caseworker of the European Union Agency for Asylum who only had competencies to conduct interviews in accordance with applications for international protection in the accelerated border procedure. Moreover, neither the contents of the contested decision nor the documents in the file indicate that the applicant was invited to appear before the relevant authorities to conduct a new interview in the context of the review of her request in accordance with the standard procedure to which she was referred.