The applicant is a Syrian national. He entered Austria at the Spielfeld border crossing in 2016 and was subjected to identification and registration procedures. He expressed her will to seek asylum in Austria, but he was readmitted to Slovenia. The registration form mentioned that the applicant was making contradictory statements. The name of the interpreter was not noted in the official form. The judge referred to cases LVwG 20.3-873/2016, LVwG 21.3-874/2016 with regards to the adequacy of interpreters employed and in order to ensure an effective remedy such information must be always noted in the form. It also noted the responsibility of the state for the interpretation it provides whether the providers are private companies. The Court stated that it cannot assess whether the assessment “contradictory information” was made by the border guards or by the interpreter. However, the prejudicial assessment lead to the complainant being denied the possibility to apply for asylum. The Court also stated that the applicant should have been properly interviewed with regards to her grounds for requesting asylum.

The Court looked at Art. 13 (2 ) of Regulation (EC) 562/2006 (former Schengen Borders Code), according to which entry may be refused only by a substantiated decision stating the precise reasons for the refusal, and the reasons must appear in the relevant form. The form did not include the reasons and the Court found that the statements of the border officers were contradictory in this regard.

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.