The case concerned an Iranian national whose asylum application was not processed because the State Secretary considered that Croatia was the responsible Member State and adopted a transfer decision. The applicant complained and claimed that there are systemic deficiencies in Croatia due to pushbacks and the Court of the Hague ruled that the State Secretary has wrongly relied on the interstate principle of mutual trust. The court referred to the judgements of 13 April 2022 (Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid) and stated that the State Secretary did not properly reasoned its decision to rely on the interstate principle because of serious grounds of risk of pushback of Dublin returnees.

The State Secretary further complained before the Council of State that the lower court wrongly considered that they did not substantiate that they can rely on the principle of mutual trust with regards to Croatia and that the lower court wrongly interpreted the ruling of 13 April 2022.

The Council of State allowed the appeal of the State Secretary and agreed with the later that the interpretation of that judgment is relevant for the assessment of the information provided by the Croatian authorities and that in the ruling the Council of State did not provide an assessment of the risk of pushbacks, but the case was referred back for further investigation.

The Council of State ruled that the State Secretary may assume that all EU member states provide effective and equal protection for fundamental rights as provided for in the EU Charter, the Refugee Convention and the ECHR, except when in practice there is a risk of violation of fundamental rights.

The Council of State noted that following the ruling of April 2022, the State Secretary has investigated the current situation for Dublin returnees in Croatia and found that the Croatian authorities comply with the Dublin III Regulation and that Dublin returnees are received in Croatia and have access to the national asylum procedure. The State Secretary mentioned to have received information via a letter from the Croatian authorities of 15 November 2022 where the Croatian authorities stated that: "In line with the Dublin Regulation, Croatia enables applicants for international protection who have been returned to lodge a new application for international protection upon return, which is not treated as a subsequent application. Such an application guarantees the applicant the right to stay in Croatia from the day of expressing the intention until the decision concerning the application becomes enforceable, in line with Article 53 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection (Official Gazette 70/2015, 127/2017) and the examination of the merits of the application.

A person returned under the Dublin procedure is welcomed by police officers at the relevant border crossing point. If the returnee applies for international protection, the intention to apply for international protection is submitted at the nearest police station/police administration. If returnees do not belong to a vulnerable group, they are referred to the Reception Center for Applicants for International Protection in Zagreb or Kutina, while vulnerable groups of applicants are transferred to the Reception Center in an official vehicle. […]"

"[…] There are no exceptions to the re-admittance of Dublin returnees to the asylum procedure upon arrival to Croatia. […]"

The Council of State further noted that other recent reports from various organisations do not show that the testimonials and issues reported concern Dublin returnees. In such circumstances, the Council of State considered that the State Secretary has thus fulfilled his obligation to investigate and, based on the findings, he may again rely on the interstate principle of trust with regard to Croatia. The Council of State allowed the appeal of the State Secretary and stated that the possible shortcomings in the asylum system in Croatia do not mean that all Dublin returnees in general or the applicant in this case specifically, would face a real risk of treatment in violation of Article 4 of the EU Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR in case of transfer.