The applicant applied for international protection in Slovenia and the Ministry of the Interior rejected the request because it deemed that Croatia was the responsible Member State for processing the application under the Dublin III Regulation.

The applicant filed an appeal against the decision with the Administrative Court and requested also a temporary injunction, both being rejected because the court determined that there were no systematic deficiencies in Croatia's asylum and reception system that could pose a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the EU Charter.

The applicant submitted a doctor's report to the Administrative Court which allegedly revealed that he had a health condition. The Administrative Court determined that the applicant would not be exposed to such danger due to his health condition because the doctor's report did not recommend hospital care for the applicant, but only a control examination and prescribed medication. The court deemed the report as insufficient evidence as it stated that the applicant had difficulties interacting with people, nightmares, and fears. The court further established that health care is available in Croatia, and based on the applicant's statements, he expected to find work and therefore was considered capable of living a normal daily life.

The applicant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the decision. In the appeal, the applicant also revealed that he was seriously ill and has been diagnosed with chronic hallucinatory psychosis - an unspecified inorganic psychosis, as well as problems from abdominal surgery, as a result of which transfer to Croatia could result in a significant and irreversible deterioration of his state of health, exposing him to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. To prove the aforementioned, he recommended the nomination of specialists in psychiatry and general medicine, but the Supreme Court did not rule on this. The applicant further challenged the Administrative Court's decision where the later stated that he did not demonstrate harm that is difficult to report for the issuing of a temporary injunction. The applicant stated that a temporary injunction should be granted because of his severely impaired mental and physical condition.

The Supreme Court upheld the applicant's appeal and returned the case to the Administrative Court for a new procedure. The Supreme Court observed that the applicant opposed to the transfer to Croatia citing persistent inadequacies in the asylum procedure and referring to the grounds for accepting applicants under Article 3(2)(2) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The Supreme Court referred to the CJEUs ruling in C.K. and Others v Republic of Slovenia (Republika Slovenija), which explained that Article 4 of the Charter must be interpreted as follows: 1) even if there is no reasoned assumption about the existence of systemic deficiencies in the Member State responsible for processing the asylum application, the transfer of the applicant within the Dublin III Regulation can only be carried out in circumstances in which transfer cannot result in a real and demonstrable risk that the person concerned would be treated inhumanely or degradingly within the meaning of this Article, and 2) that in circumstances in which the transfer of the applicant with a particularly severe mental or physical illness may cause an actual and demonstrated risk of a significant and irreversible deterioration of the health condition of the person concerned, this transfer may confer inhuman and degrading treatment in the sense of the said article.

Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that it follows from the case law of the ECtHR in Paposhvili v Belgium regarding Article 3 of the ECHR (which is taken into account when interpreting Article 4 of the Charter) that it can also cover suffering due to a physical or mental illness that occurred naturally, if it is aggravated by or the conduct of the authorities, for example, expulsion, or if there is a risk that it will escalate, provided that the suffering resulting thereon reaches the minimum threshold.

The Supreme Court further highlighted that the applicant requested an appointment of medical specialists to demonstrate his medical condition, which owing to the transfer, might result in a considerable and irreparable deterioration of his health condition and therefore result in inhuman or degrading treatment. The Supreme Court highlighted that the ability to offer evidence and to ensure its assessment in court proceedings is part of the right to make a statement, which is the most direct and significant manifestation of the right to equal protection of rights established by Article 22 of the Constitution. 

In re-examining the case, the Supreme Court stated that the Administrative Court must define the applicants' statements regarding the risk of deterioration of his health condition, which should reach a level of seriousness in accordance with the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR, and Article 285 of the Civil Procedures Act. Furthermore, the Administrative Court should additionally clarify the applicant's claims regarding the seriousness of his medical condition and the consequences of his transfer and then decide on the merits of the evidence presented.