The case originated from the readmission of two Syrian nationals and their four minor children from Austria to Slovenia. The applicants had entered at different crossing points. The Court found that the complainants did not give specific reasons for seeking asylum nor did they express the willingness to seek asylum in Austria. The applicants did mention they were on their journey to Germany. The Court did not find that there had been an error of interpretation and recognized that the information noted in the registration forms was accurate. The border guards declared that neither of the applicants were accompanied by their minor children. 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.

Arts. 5 (1) and (4) and 13, Regulation (EC) 562/2006 (former Schegen Borders Code) were scrutinized by the Court and no violation was found .

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.