The case concerned a Kurdish family of Iraqi nationality who applied for asylum in Germany on 19 June 2020. The BAMF rejected the applications as inadmissible and ordered a Dublin transfer to Croatia on the grounds that there were no systemic deficiencies in the Croatian asylum procedure. The applicants filed an appeal before the Regional Administrative Court of Sigmaringen, which was rejected by judgement of 23 May 2022. By decision of 20 December 2022, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg allowed the leave to appeal due to the fundamental importance of the case with regard to the question of whether applicants transferred based on the Dublin III Regulation could be affected by pushbacks or chain deportations.

In their statements, the applicants argued that the transfer deadline had expired and that due to Croatia's involvement in chain deportations, there was a considerable risk that applicants transfer from Germany under the Dublin procedure would be exposed to pushbacks.

On the expiration of the six-month transfer deadline, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg decided that the period had not yet expired, as the BAMF had lawfully ordered the suspension of the execution of the transfer decision until the final decision of the appeal procedure. In this regard, the court referred to the CJEU judgment, Federal Republic of Germany v MA, PB, LE, C-245/21 and C-248/21, 22 September 2022 and E.N., S.S., J.Y. v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), C‑556/21, 30 March 2023, according to which the BAMF could also suspend the transfer period in accordance with Article 27(4) of the Dublin III Regulation, if the suspension enabled an applicant to remain in Germany until a final decision on the appeal and to obtain effective legal protection there, which was the case here.

The Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg further held that systemic weaknesses that entail the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter occurred not only in cases of destitution (lack of "bed, bread, soap), but also in cases where there was a risk of a violation of the prohibition of refoulement upon transfer (ECtHR, Ilias and Ahmed (Bangladesh) v Hungary, Application no. 47287/15, 21 November 2019). However, the court held that even though country information on the situation in Croatia showed that there were repeated pushbacks from Croatia to Serbia or Bosnia-Herzegovina and illegal chain deportations occurred, there was no sufficient evidence that these violations occurred also in the case of Dublin applicants, which could not be compared to the situation of persons who had not yet applied for asylum.

The court further rejected the argument that pushbacks or chain deportations of Dublin applicants could be justified by the freedom of movement of applicants in Croatia or the "7-day-expulsion-papers" after rejection of applications, the low presence of NGOs or the few Dublin applicants or the few reception places for Dublin asylum seekers, because it considered speculative to construct a "real risk" of human rights violations from this.

Finally, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg decided that systemic weaknesses could not be justified by a potential treatment of an asylum application as a subsequent application upon transfer. Even if such a practice would be contrary to EU law, there was effective (urgent) legal protection in Croatia to appeal such a practice.

Based on the above, the court ruled that there was no "real risk" of inhuman or degrading treatment in Croatia for either non-vulnerable or vulnerable applicants under Dublin procedure, not even with regard to pushbacks or chain deportations. Neither could the possible treatment of an asylum application as a subsequent application in Croatia justify systemic weaknesses, nor did other systemic weaknesses in the Croatian asylum procedure or the reception conditions occur. Therefore, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg overturned the lower court decision and held that Germany was not responsible for the applicant’s asylum procedure.