A third country national whose asylum application had been rejected in Belgium and who had been issued a two-year entry ban requested international protection in Slovenia. On 6 November the Ministry of Interior issued a decision declaring Belgium the member state responsible to examine the applicant's request. Upon appeal, the Administrative Court upheld the ministry's decision in that there were no systemic deficiencies in the asylum system of Belgium and that thus there was no risk that the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter. The court rejected the applicant's allegations that he did not understand the language nor feel safe in Belgium, indicating that his personal statements during the interview suggested otherwise, that he had been granted  accommodation and access to medical services in  Belgium, that he worked and earned money there, and that he did not leave Belgium even after being ordered to do so.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. He argued that, although Belgium had provided assurances that it will accept responsibility to examine the applicant's request for international protection, it was apparent that the country was not in a position to ensure immediate individual admission for him, that the Belgian reception system is under great pressure and that, in the current situation, priority is given to unaccompanied children, families with children and women to be eligible for admission. He argued that these circumstances indicated the existence of a risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, the applicant referred to the Court of the Hague ruling in Applicant v The Minister for Asylum and Migration (NL25.3179, 11.04.2025) alleging that, as a single male applicant not considered vulnerable, he faces a real risk of being deprived of adequate reception facilities in Belgium, which could lead to inhuman or degrading treatment. Lastly, he stated that the circumstances in his previous procedure for international protection in Belgium, where he was left to fend for himself as stateless, show a risk of inhuman treatment.

Citing the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) judgment in Jawo (C-163/17, 19 March 2019) the Supreme Court recalled at the outset the application of the principle of mutual trust, and that the presumption of compliance with human rights is rebuttable if it is shown that there are systemic deficiencies in the Member State responsible. Next, the Supreme Court upheld the considerations of the Administrative Court and rejected the applicant's allegations, finding that there were no systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures or reception conditions in Belgium. Likewise, the Supreme Court upheld the Administrative Court's findings based on  the CJEU case Tudmur (joined cases C-185/24 and C-189/24, 19 December 2024), that it does not follow from the assurances given by Belgium that there are circumstances which would reach the particular serious threshold in the sense that, as a result of the indifference of the authorities of the state, a person who is wholly dependent on public aid irrespective of their will and personal choice, would find themselves in a situation of severe material deprivation which would prevent them from meeting their most basic needs such as, good, hygiene, and accommodation, and which would endanger their physical and mental health or would place them in a state of deterioration in a situation incompatible with human dignity.

The Supreme Court noted that other EU Member States, including Slovenia, are facing difficulties with the accommodation of migrants, including applicants for international protection, due to their growing number, and that Belgium is not worse off than other countries in that respect. In addition to the growing number of applicants, the court held that there were no objective data from relevant sources, such as judgments from the ECtHR, documents of the bodies of the Council of Europe or the United Nations which would establish the existence of deficiencies in the Belgian asylum system of such a degree. The court ruled that the reference to the judgment of the District Court of the Hague dated April 2025 could not justify allowing the appeal, as that decision could not substantiate, in the specific case, the existence of systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Belgium. The court held that, whilst the content of that decision shown that inhuman or degrading treatment may have occurred, no such grounds had been established in the present case.

In the absence of other elements to consider ex officio, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded.