Two Syrian nationals and their three minor children entered Austria in 2016 at Spielfeld official border crossing point and were subsequently readmitted to Slovenia. The applicants re-entered Austria at a later time and they were again readmitted to Slovenia. the Court observe that the names of the interpreters were missing from the registration forms. The Court found that it was the complainants responsibility to present indicating asylum or a humanitarian right to stay. The Court did not request that the complainants should have expressedly say the word “asylum” but present information they are in need of protection. The Court did not find that border guards are required to conduct further questioning if the applicants did not give information about the reasons for entering the territory and needing protection. Nor did the Court find that the border guards were under the responsibility to provide the applicants with information on asylum in the European Union when the applicants mentioned they were on their journey to Germany. The Court stated that Slovenia is a safe third country and found the refoulement legal.
The Court found that the Austrian border guards acted in line with Art. 13 and Art. 5(1) and (4) Regulation (EC) 562/2006 (former Schegen Borders Code).
The Court rejected the request to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) 562/2006 (former Schengen Borders Code) regarding Austria reinstating border controls.