The case regards two Afghan nationals who entered Austria and requested asylum but were rejected and subsequently readmitted to Slovenia. During the identification and registration procedure the applicants were asked about the “reason for flight”. The border officers recorded the information including the applicants’ province of origin in Afghanistan. The interpreter present told the officer that the province was not at war and “no war” was marked in the form. The name and signature of the interpreter present in the interrogation was not registered. The Court found that neglecting to register the interpreter’s information hinders the applicants’ right to a remedy. It went on to reiterate that the responsibility for faulty interpretation lies with the state whether the interpretation is provided by private entities. The Court also found that the preliminary assessment made by the interpreter as well as it being taken into consideration by the border officers was unlawful and “cannot be understood”, but that it clearly led to preventing the applicants to file an asylum application and thus Art. 13 and 5(1) and (4) of the former Schengen Borders Code Regulation was not complied with. The Court continued stating that that a person’s grounds for asylum could only be assessed by the competent authorities or by courts.

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.