A Burundian national requested international protection in Slovenia. The Ministry of Interior considered his claim inadmissible, declaring Poland the Member State responsible and set a time limit for the execution of the surrender. Upon appeal to the Administrative Court, the court rejected as unfounded the allegations of the applicant had been forced to lodge an application for international protection in Poland, that he had not been explained in the proceedings that he was not allowed to leave the country, that he had not been informed of the decision on his application and that the Republic of Poland was in breach of the principle of non-refoulement. The court considered the applicant's objections to the alleged systemic deficiencies in the Polish asylum system as generalised. The court held that in the absence of a specific objection, it could be concluded that systemic deficiencies in the asylum system were not apparent even from objective data from relevant sources. The Ministry's decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Administrative Court did not verify the situation in Poland and did not explicitly assess how he would be treated in Poland and whether he was at risk of any fundamental rights violation. The applicant specifically referred to the conduct of the Polish police authorities at the border with Belarus, and alleged that Poland would not examine his application but instead return him to either Belarus or to Burundi.

The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Court had adequately considered the applicant's allegations, and that the reasons it gave for rejecting the plea of systemic deficiencies were reasonable and justified the conclusion that the applicant's transfer to the Republic of Poland would not entail a risk contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter. The Supreme Court further ruled that the applicant could not merely repeat the same pleas in law by making a generalised complaint that the court had not expressly determined how his application would be dealt with in the Republic of Poland. As to the concrete allegations concerning the conduct of border guards on the Polish-Belarusian border, the Supreme Court held, citing the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment in Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl‚ BFA) v JF (C-392/22, 29 February 2024) that such conduct is incompatible with EU law, however it does not relate to the asylum procedure or reception conditions thus is not an obstacle to a transfer.

In the absence of any other reasons to pay attention ex officio, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded.