Dublin

Author

Dutch Council for Refugees Visit Website

General

In 2023, 19% of all asylum requests were handled in Track 1, amounting to approximately 9,637 requests (as the total influx in 2023 was 50,720). 7,670 Dublin claimants appealed their decision to a Regional Court. The number of onward appeals in Dublin cases is not available.[1]

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2024

These numbers concern total requests, both initial and re-examination requests. The statistics regarding the five countries with the highest number of outgoing and incoming requests are shown in the table below.

 Source: Eurostat

*Note regarding the following tables: some of the totals do not add up to the same figure as the sum of the different categories below. The source of the inconsistency is unknown to the authors of this report. The data has been taken from Eurostat.

Source: Eurostat

Source: Eurostat

Application of the Dublin criteria

As a result of the answers of the CJEU in the case of H. and R.,[2] the Council of State concluded that an asylum applicant cannot rely on a Chapter III-criterion in case of take backs.[3] The exception to this rule is the situation described in Article 20(5) of the Dublin Regulation.[4] This means that the IND only looks at the responsibility criteria of Chapter III of the Dublin Regulation in take charge and Article 20(5)-situations.

Out of the total of 7,986 outgoing requests in 2024 (per Eurostat), 1,301 requests were take charge requests. All other requests were take back requests in which the criteria of Chapter III are, in principle, not applied following the CJEU ruling in H. and R.

Eurodac and prior applications

According to the Council of State, the Minister may rely on the information in Eurodac when establishing which Member State is responsible for handling the asylum request.[5]  It is up to the asylum applicant to demonstrate that the registration is incorrect. In addition to a match in the Eurodac system or a prior application, other information, such as an original visa supplied by another Member State or statements from the asylum applicant regarding family members or their travel route, may result in a Dublin claim.

Guarantees for minors: Article 6 and 8 Dublin Regulation

Unaccompanied children who have already applied for asylum in another Member State and who do not have any family members legally residing in the EU will not receive a Dublin claim. The current practice is therefore in line with the CJEU’s judgement in the case of MA and Others.[6]

In cases where an unaccompanied minor has a family member in another Member State or travels with a family member, the IND may not transfer the unaccompanied minor without investigating whether a transfer would be in the best interest of the child. This follows from several judgements by the Council of State.[7] The IND communicated that it started a pilot cooperation with the University of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, RUG), beginning on 15 October 2024 and lasting for at least six months. In ten suitable cases, experts from the RUG make behavioural and pedagogical assessments to determine whether reunification with a family member in another Member State is in the best interest of the child. This cooperation, and more in general the benefits of the assessments with Dublin procedures, will be evaluated after the pilot.[8] The Regional Court of Amsterdam has ruled that the best interest of the child should also be taken into account in cases where not the child, but their family member, receives a Dublin claim.[9]

For more information on age assessment, see section on Age Assessment.

Family unity: Articles 9 and 10 Dublin Regulation

Dutch policy only clarifies how family links are assessed with regard to unaccompanied children. In such cases, where possible, the IND uses DNA tests. If this option is not available, for example due to family links not being biological, the IND assesses family ties with identifying questions. When an applicant does not mention their family members during the interview conducted at the start of the asylum procedure, this can be used against the family members when they wish to invoke the family unity criteria in Articles 8-11 of the Dublin Regulation.[10] In general, jurisprudence shows that documents are required in order for the IND to establish a family relationship or a marital bond. However, even without official documents, there may be cause for the Minister to be obligated to investigate whether family unity and a stable relationship exist.[11] Family unity can also be established from circumstantial evidence.[12]

As to the question of whether there is a stable relationship within the meaning of the Dublin Regulation, the Council of State ruled that this must also be seen in the light of the circumstances under which the applicants were able to give substance to their relationship in their country of origin.[13] According to the Council of State, in view of the difficult position of the LGBTI community in Russia, the Minister should have asked more questions regarding the sustainability of the relationship between the asylum applicant and her female partner.

Per Eurostat, out of the total of 1,301 outgoing take charge requests in 2024, only 6 were on the basis of Articles 9 and 10 of the Dublin Regulation, and there were only 12 incoming requests.

Residence documents or visas: Article 12 Dublin Regulation

As to the application of Article 12(4) of the Dublin Regulation, the Council of State ruled on the interpretation of the phrase ‘one or more visas which have expired’. It stated that Regulation 810/2009 (Visa code) differentiates between the duration, the permitted length of stay and the number of entries permitted by a visa. The Council of State concluded that the phrase refers to the duration of a visa.[14]

On 25 August 2021, the Council of State decided to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU in the case of applicants who received diplomatic cards from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of another Member State. The IND claimed the Member State issuing the diplomatic card would be responsible on the basis of Article 12 Dublin Regulation. The Council of State asked whether a diplomatic card issued by a Member State under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a residence document within the meaning of Article 2(1) Dublin Regulation.[15] The Court of Justice concluded that the diplomatic card is indeed a residence document, therefore falling under the definition of Article 2(1) Dublin Regulation, rendering Article 12 applicable in cases of a diplomatic card being issued by another Member State.[16]

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

The burden of proof in showing that a situation of dependency exists lies with the asylum applicant, but the IND has to motivate every case in which it refuses to apply Article 16.[17] It is settled case law that the applicant has to demonstrate that a situation of dependency exists between them and their family member, with objective documents demonstrating what concrete assistance their family member offers or receives.[18]

The IND typically only applies Article 16 of the Dublin Regulation in situations of ‘exclusive dependence’, meaning that the asylum applicant has to demonstrate that they receive or provide care that no other person could facilitate. The Council of State has approved this strict framework. In 2020, the Council of State ruled that Article 16 did not apply to the situation in which the asylum seeker was dependent on intensive informal care, mainly provided by her son.[19] According to the Council of State, it had not been shown that it was impossible or very difficult, to replace her son as a care provider nor had they shown that the presence of her son was necessary for the treatment to be successful. Similarly, in 2019, the Council of State ruled that the asylum applicant had failed to show that she was the only person capable of caring for her seriously ill mother, as her brothers were also present and there is the option of home care.[20] In the case of an asylum applicant who claimed that a situation of dependency existed between him, his mother and his mentally impaired brother, the Council of State ruled that a statement of a family doctor – indicating that the asylum applicant’s presence is indispensable to his mother and his brother – was not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of exclusive dependency.[21]

Both the Regional Court of Den Bosch and the Regional Court of Haarlem recently held that the strict interpretation of Article 16 employed by the IND and Council of State conflicts with Union law.[22]

On 30 November 2021, the Regional Court of Zwolle decided to refer preliminary questions on the scope of Article 16 to the CJEU. The case concerned a woman, who married shortly after her arrival in the Netherlands, whose husband resided lawfully in the Netherlands. At the time, the IND issued a transfer decision, the woman was pregnant with their child. The Regional Court requested the CJEU whether Union law precludes national legislation that takes into account the best interests of an unborn child and whether Article 16(1) of the Dublin III Regulation applies to the relationship between the unborn child and the father of that unborn child who is lawfully residing in the Member State.[23] The CJEU concluded that Article 16 of the Dublin Regulation does not apply to a dependency link either between an applicant for international protection and that applicant’s spouse who is legally resident in the Member State in which the application was lodged, or between the unborn child of that applicant and the spouse who is also the father of that child. However, Article 17 of the Regulation does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from requiring competent national authorities, on the sole ground of the best interests of the child, to examine an application for international protection lodged by a third-country national where she was pregnant at the time her application was lodged, even though the criteria set out in Articles 7 to 15 of the Regulation indicate that another Member State is responsible for that application.

Sovereignty clause: Article 17(1) Dublin Regulation

The IND is reticent regarding the application of Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation in taking responsibility for handling an asylum request. This is a result of the principle of mutual trust between Member States. Paragraph C2/5 of the Aliens Circular stipulates in which cases Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation will be applied:

• Where there are concrete indications that the Member State responsible for handling the asylum request does not respect international obligations;
• Where the transfer of the asylum applicant to the responsible Member State is of disproportionate harshness, due to special individual circumstances;
• Where the IND finds that the application of Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation may better serve process control, in particular when the asylum applicant originates from a safe country of origin, and a return to the country of origin is guaranteed in the foreseeable future (after the procedure has been processed).

The Council of State ruled in 2018 that the Court shall only minimally review the application of the discretionary clause of Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation. The Regional Court cannot overrule the IND’s decision to apply Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation and replace that decision with its own judgment.[24] Again, in 2020 the Council of State ruled that as to the application of Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation, the Courts should limit themselves to testing the decision-making by the Minister against the requirements set by the law. The Courts should refrain from substituting their own judgment for that of the Minister .[25] In its judgment of 30 September 2023, the European Court of Justice reiterated the discretionary nature of Article 17, concluding that a judge cannot order a Member State to make use of Article 17, as the Minister has the exclusive power to handle an asylum request without obligation.[26]

The Council of State ruled in 2016 that there is no obligation for the IND to protect family relations other than those mentioned in the Dublin III Regulation.[27] For example, the relationship between the asylum applicant and his wife, who has been naturalised and is pregnant with his child is not, according to the Council of State, a special, individual circumstance that obliges the IND to apply Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation.[28] The interests of the child and respect for family life are enshrined in the Dublin III Regulation in various binding criteria for identifying the responsible Member State, according to the Council of State.[29] This line of reasoning is still referenced in recent judgments, with Regional Courts declaring that  Dublin Regulation is not meant as a route through which a residence permit with a family member in the Netherlands can be accomplished.[30] Although Article 6 of the Dublin Regulation does not oblige the Minister to assume responsibility on the basis of Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation, the best interests of the child should be taken into account.[31]

While enjoying a large margin of discretion in applying Article 17, the IND must state reasons for refraining from applying the discretionary clause if the applicant appeals to this clause. However, in the past year, there has been a lot of discussion regarding this obligation to state reasons. Multiple Regional Courts ruled that even though the asylum and/or accommodation situation in the responsible Member State was deteriorating, they did not constitute an obstacle to transfer the asylum applicant to that Member State. In many such cases – most notably with regards to Croatia, Bulgaria and Poland – the asylum applicants had suffered traumatic mistreatment in those countries, and therefore requested the Minister to apply Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation. Even though the Regional Courts cannot rule that the Minister must apply this discretionary clause, they could rule that not applying this clause requires a sufficient justification.[32] However, the Council of State did not agree, as they concluded that by assessing whether an asylum applicant can be transferred to the responsible Member State, the Minister already takes into account the previous experiences in that Member State, and thus the Minister does not need to state additional reasons for not applying the discretionary clause.[33] The Regional Court of Roermond does not agree with this interpretation, as it views the two assessments as vastly different.[34] Possibly, preliminary questions will be asked to the CJEU if this discrepancy in the jurisprudence persists, as the Council of State has since reiterated its position.[35]

Humanitarian clause: Article 17(2) Dublin Regulation

The IND is equally reticent with regard to the application of Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation in requesting another Member State to undertake responsibility for an asylum application. Reasons for using the clause can be family reunification or cultural grounds, although there have to be special individual circumstances that would result in the asylum applicant facing disproportionate hardship if they are not reunited with their family.[36]

The IND does not register the grounds most commonly accepted for using the ‘humanitarian clause’ or the number of cases in which it is used. This practice has not changed in 2024.

Procedure

Specific rules regarding the Dublin Procedure are included in Paragraph C1/2.6 Aliens Circular.

Immediately after the request for asylum has been filed, during the application procedure, the IND starts investigating whether another Member State is responsible for examining the asylum application. All asylum applicants are systematically fingerprinted and checked in Eurodac and EU-VIS.^[37] Refusal to be fingerprinted can be considered as lack of sufficient cooperation during the procedure. If the application is rejected, the refusal to be fingerprinted can lead to a rejection as ‘manifestly unfounded’ instead of ‘unfounded’, which entails that an entry ban (of two years) would also be imposed to the applicant.

The IND, in cooperation with the Dutch Council for Refugees, has drafted brochures that provide asylum applicants information on the Dublin procedure in 12 languages. These brochures are available in Arabic, Chinese, Dari, Dutch, English, Farsi, French, Pashtu, Russian, Somali, Tigrinya and Turkish.

In case the IND presumes that another Member State is responsible for examining the asylum request on its merits, the application will be assessed in ‘Track 1’ as explained in the Overview of the Procedure. In this procedure, the asylum applicant is not granted a rest and preparation period and is not medically examined by MediFirst.[38] There are two cases in which the Regional Court of Rotterdam has ruled that the asylum applicant should have been examined by FMMU/Medifirst, even though the application was dealt with in Track 1.[39]

Within a few days after filing the application, the asylum applicant takes part in a registration interview with the IND (see below for more information). After the interview, the IND decides whether another Member State is indeed responsible for examining the asylum request on its merits. If that is the case, the asylum request is rejected and processed in the Dublin procedure.[40] In 2022, 2023, and to a lesser degree 2024, there have been issues relating to the formal registration and the registration interview, because of the chaotic situation in Ter Apel (for more information, see Short overview of the asylum procedure and Reception Conditions). Because of this, asylum applicants had to wait up to several months after filing their application until they had their reporting interview. Because this disparity between the moment people request asylum and when they are able to officially lodge the asylum request, the issue concerning at what moment the Dublin time periods for take back and take charge requests, as well as transfer periods actually start, arose. The IND used the day of the official registration, (which sometimes was months after arrival in Ter Apel) as the starting date to calculate these deadlines. However, on 21 September 2023, the Council of State ruled that original moment of expressing the need for international protection is to be considered the starting date for the Dublin time periods.[41] In line with this ruling, the IND has started using this moment as the starting date and in cases where incorrectly a later date was used, Regional Courts have ruled in favour of the asylum applicant.

The IND files a Dublin request as soon as it has good reason to assume that another Member State is responsible for examining the asylum application according to the criteria set out in the Dublin III Regulation. The IND does not wait for a response from the other Member State before the next step in the Dublin procedure is taken in Track 1. The negative decision that the asylum request ‘shall not be considered’, however, is only taken after the Dublin request has been expressly or tacitly accepted by the other Member State.[42] Normally, the asylum applicant will be notified that their application will be handled in the Dublin track relatively soon after registration. However, the procedure took much longer than usual starting in 2022. For comparison: in 2019 it took an average of 14-15 weeks from the moment of registration to the issuance of a Dublin decision. In 2022, the average time increased to 20-28 weeks.[43] As of 9 January 2025, the Dublin interview is conducted after 13 weeks.[44] On average it takes 23 weeks between the moment of registration to the moment of a Dublin decision.[45]

General remarks made under the Regular Procedure ‘Track 4’ section concerning video/audio recording, interpreters, accessibility and quality of the interview also apply to the Dublin procedure.

Time limits for transfer under the Dublin Regulation and suspensive effect

In line with Article 29, first paragraph of the Dublin Regulation, the Dutch authorities must carry out the transfer of an asylum applicant to the responsible Member State as soon as practically possible, and at the latest within six months after the take back/take charge request was accepted by the responsible Member State or within six months after the final decision on the (onward) appeal against the decision not to handle the asylum request if suspensive effect was granted in the (onward) appeal stage.

A request for a provisional measure that has been granted during a procedure challenging the way the actual transfer will be carried out,[46] is a request that falls under Article 27, third paragraph of the Dublin Regulation.[47] In those cases, the transfer period is suspended and will restart after the court ruling.

In the course of 2021, the Council of State referred multiple preliminary questions to the CJEU about the suspensive effect in Dublin cases. These questions concerned whether the so-called ‘chain rule’ applies to Dublin III (cases C-323/21, C-324/21 and C-325/21);[48] whether the suspensive effect granted as a result of an application for residence in the Netherlands on regular grounds can also be regarded as suspensive effect in accordance with Article 27, third paragraph of the Dublin Regulation (case C-338/21);[49] and whether the Minister can request suspensive effect in the onward appeal stage (case C-556/21).[50]

On 12 January 2023, the CJEU ruled that the ‘chain rule’ does not apply to Dublin cases. On 30 March 2023, the CJEU answered the preliminary questions about the transfer period and suspensive effect in Dublin cases. In the case of E.N., S.S. and J.Y. v. The Netherlands (C-556/21),[51] the CJEU considered that the Minister can only request suspensive effect in the onward appeal stage if the first appeal had suspensive effect. In practice, this means that the Minister can only request to suspend the transfer deadline in Dublin cases when presenting an appeal against a judgment of the Council of State, if the first instance court had granted suspensive effect per request of the asylum applicant.

In the case of S.S. and N.Z v. Netherlands (C-338/21),[52] the CJEU considered that the suspensive effect that is granted in a procedure for a residence permit on regular grounds (in this case: a residence permit as a victim of human trafficking) does not lead to suspension of the Dublin transfer period.

Following the judgment of E.N., S.S and J.Y. v. The Netherlands, the IND changed their policy regarding the suspensive effect of a provisional ruling. Prior to this decision, an asylum applicant was allowed to stay in the Netherlands to await the result of the provisional ruling, if that provisional ruling was requested within 24 hours of the negative decision.[53] However, the provisional judge’s ruling was still decisive as to whether the transfer decision had suspensive effect. In other words, if the provisional judge decided to reject the request and not grant suspensive effect, the asylum applicant could be transferred to the responsible Member State, even though the appeal was not yet decided upon by the court. As a result, the transfer period was not suspended if the provisional measure was rejected.

This change in policy led to the following. The Minister argued that the mere request of a provisional ruling amounted to suspensive effect as laid down in Article 27(3) Dublin Regulation, meaning that this resulted in the suspension of the transfer period (Article 29(1) Dublin Regulation). On 22 November 2023, the Council of State ruled that this policy was not in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, and that a judge’s decision regarding the request for a provisional ruling decided if it had suspensive effect, and not the mere request.[54] As a result, the policy change was reverted to the situation as it was before.

Lastly, the Council of State also ruled in accordance with the CJEU’s judgment in E.N., S.S and J.Y. v. The Netherlands, that an onward appeal only has suspensive effect, if the transfer decision was suspended in appeal. Both the Minister and asylum applicant can thus only request a provisional measure in onward appeal, if a provisional measure was allocated in appeal.[55]

Extension of time limits in case of absconding (Article 29, second paragraph Dublin Regulation)

With reference to the ruling of the CJEU in the Jawo case,[56] in 2020 the Minister clarified Dutch policy regarding the interpretation of Article 29(2) of the Dublin Regulation.[57] The Minister made clear in which two situations it may in any case be assumed that the asylum applicant absconds, resulting in an extension of the transfer period to eighteen months:

• in case the asylum applicant leaves the reception facilities without informing authorities as to their destination; and/or
• in case the asylum applicant does not appear at the time of transfer.

The Council of State has ruled that a person only ‘absconds’ in the sense of the Jawo case when they deliberately remain physically out of reach for the authorities.[58] The Regional Court of Roermond recently clarified that these two criteria are cumulative: an asylum applicant is deemed to have absconded if they leave the reception facilities without informing the authorities and, subsequently, does not show up for their transfer.[59]

Individualised guarantees

Asylum applicants with medical problems

Asylum applicants with serious medical problems, who need medical care, are transferred to the responsible Member State in accordance with Article 32 of the Dublin III Regulation (Exchange of health data before a transfer is carried out).[60] If the asylum applicant considers the mere exchange of medical information to be insufficient, they may request the IND to obtain additional guarantees from the other Member State. It is for the asylum applicant to demonstrate that, without these additional guarantees, they will not have access to adequate care and reception.[61] In the case of a family with six children, with one child suffering from severe psychological problems as a result of PTSD, the Council of State considered that no additional guarantees were required from the Italian authorities as it had not been established that adequate care could not be accessed.[62]

In the case of C.K. and others, the CJEU stated that even if there are no serious grounds for believing that there are systemic failures in the asylum procedure and the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum, a transfer in itself can entail a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the CJEU, this is notably the case in circumstances where the transfer of an asylum applicant, with a particularly serious mental or physical condition, leads to the applicant’s health significantly deteriorating.[63] This CJEU judgment has been invoked several times. The Council of State has made clear that not only does the asylum applicant need to mention his medical condition and (the need for) medical treatment, but also the consequences of a transfer in itself. Moreover, a medical practitioner should have declared there is an actual danger or high risk of suicide and decompensation. Only then is the IND expected to investigate further.[64]

In individual cases, the Minister might need to seek reassurances as to whether an asylum applicant will receive accommodation and is treated in accordance with EU law in the responsible Member State. If the Minister fails to do so, a Regional Court might rule that failing to seek these reassurances results in an illegitimate transfer decision. For example, the Regional Court of Utrecht found that a young woman with an infant could not be transferred to France without further individual guarantees as determined in the ECtHR case Tarakhel v. Switzerland.[65],[66] These individual guarantees are not requested for specific countries or for specific groups of asylum applicants, but the Minister must be vigilant as to whether the asylum applicant will be treated in accordance with international regulations in the responsible state.

Transfers

An asylum applicant whose request has been rejected because another Member State is responsible for handling the asylum request may, under certain conditions, be detained. Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation is interpreted in a way that allows detention in many cases (see section on Detention of Asylum Applicants). The Regional Court compensated an asylum applicant who had been detained before being transferred to another Member State, as the IND’s explanation of the reasons for having postponed the transfer were considered to be insufficient.[67]

In principle, the asylum applicant has the option to either travel to the responsible Member State voluntarily or under escort. When the applicant chooses to leave voluntarily, they have 4 weeks to do so.[68] On the other hand, the Council of State ruled in 2017 that the IND may withhold this possibility, especially when the responsible Member State does not agree to a voluntary transfer.[69]

Personal interview

During the application procedure, the IND conducts a registration interview that focuses on the asylum applicant’s identity, nationality and travel route. The aim of this interview is to determine whether another Member State is responsible for examining the asylum request on its merits. During this interview, the asylum applicant is informed that the Netherlands may send or already has sent a ‘take back’ or ‘take charge’ request to another Member State. The asylum applicant may present arguments as to why the transfer should not take place and why the Netherlands should deal with their asylum application. In this context, the judgment of the CJEU of 30 November 2023 is also relevant, in which the Court ruled that an interview must always take place in Dublin cases before a transfer decision is taken.[70]

As a result of the CJEU’s ruling in Ghezelbash in 2016, the asylum applicant can claim a wrongful application of the Dublin criteria as well as state circumstances and facts demonstrating that a transfer would result in a violation of Article 3 ECHR.[71] In principle, these arguments should be brought to the attention of the IND during the registration interview. However, If the IND decides to not consider the asylum request on the ground that the Dublin Regulation applies, the asylum applicant can appeal this decision, and present these arguments in court. In theory, an additional interview can be conducted after the registration interview to further explain the arguments as to why a Dublin transfer would be in breach of EU law, but in practice this does not occur.[72]

In the case of an asylum applicant who, during the registration interview had declared to have entered the EU via Italy, but later on claimed these statements were incorrect, the Council of State ruled that the IND was not compelled to inform Italian authorities about these corrections.[73]

Appeal

In case an asylum application is rejected because another Member State is responsible for examining the asylum application according to the IND, the asylum request ‘shall not be considered’.[74] The asylum applicant may appeal this decision before the Regional Court.[75] The appeal must be filed within one  week after the decision not to consider the asylum application.[76] As the appeal has no automatic suspensive effect, the applicant must file a separate request to suspend the transfer, a so called provisional ruling (voorlopige voorziening, also known as vovo).

At the beginning of January 2021, a request for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU was made by the Regional Court of Haarlem.[77] The Court was faced with the question of whether an unaccompanied minor has the right to bring an effective legal remedy against the rejection to take charge of their case based on Article 8(2), of the Dublin Regulation. The CJEU concluded that an unaccompanied minor applicant must be able to exercise a judicial remedy, under Article 27(1) of the Dublin Regulation, not only where the requesting Member State takes a transfer decision, but also where the requested Member State refuses to take charge of the person concerned, in order to be able to plead an infringement of the right conferred by Article 8(2) of that Regulation.[78]

Legal assistance

In Dublin cases (‘Track 1’), the right to free legal assistance differs from the regular procedure (‘Track 4’). Instead of being referred to a lawyer once they register their asylum application, asylum applicants subject to the Dublin procedure are assigned a lawyer only when the IND issues a written intention to reject the application.[79] The method for appointing the lawyer to the asylum applicant is the same as outlined in Regular Procedure – Legal assistance.

Numerous cases have been reported where this has caused problems concerning the obligation, or even the possibility, for a legal counsel to represent the asylum applicant. In those cases, no contact was established between the applicant and their lawyer due to the fact that the applicant would abscond after receiving the IND’s written intention to reject the application. The Legal Aid Board published guidelines on how to deal with this situation on 20 September 2019.[80] Essentially, the lawyer informs the Legal Aid Board and withdraws themselves from the case. In recent years, no additional signs that this is an ongoing problem have been received.

Suspension of transfers

It is noteworthy to highlight Dutch case law and practice regarding the suspension of Dublin transfers, particularly in relation to certain Member States.

Italy: Following the 2021 ECtHR judgement in the case of M.T. v the Netherlands,[81] establishing that a Dublin transfer to Italy of a single mother and two children would not violate Article 3 ECHR, the Council of State has also confirmed that the principle of mutual trust applies to Italy for particularly vulnerable applicants.[82] A more detailed description of the case law regarding Dublin Italy cases over the years 2015 – 2021 can be found in the AIDA report: Netherlands update 2021.

However, on 5 December 2022, the Italian authorities issued a circular letter asking the other Dublin Units to temporarily halt all Dublin transfers to Italy due to a lack of reception facilities for Dublin returnees. The IND emphasised that this was a temporary transfer impediment and that this did not mean that Italy could no longer be regarded as the responsible Member State. Some Regional Courts agreed with this assessment,[83] whereas others concluded that this could not be seen as a temporary issue and must rather be seen as a possible structural issue regarding Italian reception conditions.[84]

Following the Circular Letter, Dublin transfers to Italy were suspended until the Council of State issued its judgment. On 26 April 2023, the Council of State ruled that there was no more mutual trust vis-à-vis Italy.[85] The main reason for the suspension is the lack of accommodation in Italy, where a transfer to that country could mean that an asylum applicant would find themselves in a situation of extreme material poverty as outlined in the CJEU judgment Jawo. Following this decision, no more transfers of Dublin claimants have taken place. The IND still sends claim requests to Italy which are fictively accepted, meaning asylum applicants have to wait another six months before their asylum request is handled by the Netherlands.[86] This policy is still in place as of March 2025.

An interesting development regarding this subject matter is the CJEU case RL and QS.[87] In this case, the Court of Justice ruled that, in the case of a Member State suspending the taking over and taking back of asylum applicants, this does not constitute systemic faults attaining to a particularly high level of severity in the context of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation. A Member State can thus not unilaterally discharge itself of its responsibilities under the Dublin Regulation.

Greece: The Netherlands suspended all Dublin transfers to Greece after the 2011 ECtHR ruling in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece.[88] The Aliens Circular incorporates the M.S.S. jurisprudence as interpreted by the Council of State.[89] However, following the recommendation of the European Commission of 8 December 2016, the Dutch government expressed the wish to recommence Dublin transfers to Greece, with the exception of transfers of vulnerable asylum applicants.[90] In 2019, the Dutch Minister tried to transfer several applicants to Greece on the basis of these recommendations by the European Commission. Guarantees were required from the Greek authorities, i.e. that reception conditions are suitable and that the asylum applicant will be treated in accordance with European standards. Dutch authorities further asked whether Greece has an ‘accommodation model’ that may be regarded as suitable in general, probably in order to obtain a general guarantee for future cases. However, the Council of State ruled that transfer to Greece would result in a violation of Article 3 ECHR, unless the asylum applicant is guaranteed legal assistance during the asylum procedure by the Greek authorities.[91] This situation is still in place as of March 2025, and the Minister has not issued any transfer decisions for Dublin transfers to Greece.

Malta: On 15 December 2021, the Council of State ruled that the Minister must conduct further research regarding the situation for asylum applicants in Malta.[92] The Council of State reached this conclusion based on recent information from the Maltese NGO aditus foundation, which showed that asylum applicants who are transferred to Malta on the basis of the Dublin Regulation will be detained upon arrival. Several reports also show that detention conditions in Malta are very poor and that access to legal aid has deteriorated. According to the Council of State, the Minister has provided inadequate reasons that there is no real risk for Dublin claimants of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the EU Charter if they are detained after arrival in Malta. The conclusions of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT report) of 10 March 2021 show that living conditions in the various detention centres are completely inadequate and Malta’s response to the report does not reflect the extent to which these shortcomings have actually improved since its publication.[93] Additionally, the Council of State referred to the AIDA Malta country report, indicating that NGOs have not observed any improvements in detention conditions, nor have they sufficient access to detention centres, inferring that no adequate control of detention conditions can be exercised. Even though no transfers were effectuated during 2024, multiple claims were sent to Malta. However, because of the lack of mutual trust vis-à-vis Malta, no transfer decisions were ultimately taken, nor were there any court cases published.

Denmark: On 6 July 2022, the Council of State issued three judgments regarding indirect refoulement in Dublin cases in the event of differences in protection policies between Member States.[94] Two of these cases concerned Syrian nationals who argued that they would be at risk of refoulement in case of being returned to Denmark, as in the country the province of Damascus is considered safe enough to return to. The Council of State ruled that a difference in protection policy may be a reason to suspend the Dublin transfer. To this end, the applicant must demonstrate: 1) that there is a fundamental difference in protection policy between the Netherlands and the other Member State (whereby it is established that he would receive protection in the Netherlands and not in the other Member State); and 2) that the highest national court in the other Member State does not disapprove of the policy applicable there. In the opinion of the Council of State, the applicants in this case had fulfilled their burden of proof with regard to the Danish policy on Damascus and the level of judicial protection in Denmark. However, on 6 September 2023, the Council of State judged that the Danish protection policy had changed in such a way that Syrian transfers to Denmark do not violate the prohibition of indirect refoulement anymore.[95] The two countries’ protection policies could not be said to be ‘fundamentally different’ anymore. As such, Syrians can be transferred to Denmark again on the basis of the Dublin Regulation.

On 30 November 2023, the CJEU judged that a difference in protection policy should not be seen as a systemic failure and as such is not an obstacle for a Dublin transfer, as the principle of mutual trust dictates that Member States will assess asylum applications in accordance with EU legislation.[96] In addition, judges cannot assess whether a transfer decision might lead to a violation of the principle of prohibition of indirect refoulement. Subsequently, the IND published an Information Message interpreting the judgment, and communicating the new national policy in Dublin cases, where judges cannot assess the risk of non-refoulement in Member States in Dublin cases, as the principle of mutual trust ensures that requests from asylum seekers after transferring are handled in accordance to EU law standards.[97]

Hungary: Following a Council of State ruling in November 2015,[98] the Netherlands assumes responsibility for handling asylum requests in cases where it has been established that Hungary is the responsible Member State, due to the many shortcomings in the Hungarian asylum and accommodation facilities. As a result, to the Dutch Council for Refugees’ knowledge, no asylum applicants have been transferred to Hungary since then.

There were differences of opinion between the Dutch and Hungarian authorities concerning the interpretation of the Regulation. This concerns two categories of cases:

• asylum applicants who travel through Hungary and apply for asylum for the first time in the Netherlands; and
• asylum applicants who have applied for asylum in Hungary and applied for a second time in the Netherlands.

According to Dutch authorities, Hungary is responsible for the asylum application in both situations, but the Hungarian authorities generally refused these requests. Therefore, the Dutch Minister initiated a conciliation procedure with the European Commission.[99] In a letter to the House of Representatives of 22 March 2018, the Minister made it clear that Hungary refuses to participate in a conciliation procedure.[100] As the Minister has no other means to resolve the differences of interpretation between the Hungarian and Dutch authorities, he informed the House of Representatives that Dublin claims to Hungary were being suspended.[101] This was still the case in 2025.

Poland: The Regional Court of Den Bosch referred preliminary questions to the CJEU on the scope and purport of the principle of mutual trust in the context of the transfer of an applicant to the Member State responsible. The Court made specific reference to cases in which said Member State allegedly infringed fundamental rights with respect to the applicant and third-country nationals generally, in the form of, inter alia, pushbacks and detention. The Court also asked questions relating to the evidence the applicant has at their disposal and the standard of proof that applies when they claim that transfer should be prohibited under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation.[102] Because the IND decision in that case was withdrawn, the questions were also withdrawn and there will be no judgment from the CJEU in that case. However, the questions were asked again in a case about a Dublin transfer to Poland.[103] The Council of State held a hearing on Dublin-Poland cases on 14 December 2022 and decided to wait for the CJEU case before issuing a judgment on the matter.[104] The Advocate-General of the CJEU concluded on 13 July 2023 that the principle of mutual trust is ‘divisible’, meaning that it is possible that a Member State infringes upon the rights of third-country nationals at the border in the form of pushbacks, but that the principle of mutual trust is still applicable for Dublin returnees as they will not be in contact with these rights’ infringements.[105] On 29 February 2024, the Court of Justice followed the conclusion of the Advocate-General in that the principle of mutual trust is divisible. The chance the asylum applicant will be subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 4 EU Charter upon returning to the responsible Member State determines the lawfulness of the transfer decision. Because of this decision transfers to Poland continued, as Dublin returnees are generally treated in accordance with European law and the human rights violations such as pushbacks and detention only occur at the border.[106]

Following this decision, the discussion in the Netherlands mainly focuses on the information the Minister has to include in its assessment regarding if a transfer decision can be taken. Both an asylum applicant’s statement as to the possibility of systemic faults in the responsible Member State, and publicly available country information, must be taken into account whilst taking the transfer decision.[107]

Romania: The Council of State ruled on 29 July 2021 that the Netherlands could still rely on the principle of mutual trust with regards to Romania.[108] However, on 1 August 2023 the Regional Court of Utrecht ruled that this was uncertain due to reports of pushbacks on Romanian soil. A decisive factor in this case was information from NGOs stating that also Dublin returnees could be subjected to pushbacks.[109] This conclusion was followed by the Regional Court of Haarlem three months later.[110] As a result, the Minister had to conduct research regarding the pushback situation in Romania. On 27 December 2023, the Council of State ruled that the principle of mutual trust was still applicable to Romania.[111] According to the Council of State, it did not follow from the available information that Dublin returnees are subjected to pushbacks, or that they could be transferred to Serbia on the basis of an agreement between the two countries. As such, Dublin transfers to Romania continued also in 2024.

Croatia: On 13 April 2022, the Council of State ruled that the Minister must conduct further research regarding the situation of asylum applicants being transferred to Croatia under the Dublin Regulation. This is due to reports of frequent pushbacks (including of asylum applicants who have already reached Croatian territory), which may result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement.[112] On 20 January 2023, the Minister announced that Dublin transfers to Croatia would be resumed.[113] The Croatian authorities had responded to questions put forward by the Dutch authorities and had assured that they would act in line with international obligations, according to the Minister. However, following the decision to resume the transfers, several Regional Courts ruled that the information provided by the Croatian government differed vastly from other publicly available information.[114] Once again, the Council of State had to decide on the issue. In its judgment of 13 September 2023, it ruled that the conducted research was deemed sufficient and that the situation in Croatia was satisfactory enough to decide to continue Dublin transfers.[115] However, it did not take long before the Regional Court of Amsterdam ruled that because of the dire accommodation situation and the possibility of pushbacks, transfers to Croatia had to be halted.[116] On 9 October 2024, the Council of State reiterated its position, ruling that Dublin transfers to Croatia can be effectuated.[117]

Bulgaria: In a judgment of 4 April 2017, the Council of state confirmed that the principle of mutual trust applies to Bulgaria.[118] In 2022, various Regional Courts referenced the Council of State judgement regarding pushbacks in Croatia (see above) and ruled that the widespread practice of pushbacks in Bulgaria also stands in the way of Dublin transfers to that Member State.[119] The Council of State ruled on 16 August 2023 that the Minister did not need to conduct further research regarding the Bulgarian situation, because the pushbacks in Bulgaria only happen at the borders.[120] Dublin returnees have limited moving space, and as such will not be subjected to pushbacks. Additionally, the accommodation situation was not deemed severe enough to contradict the principle of mutual trust. As a result, Dublin transfers to Bulgaria continued, also in 2024.

Cyprus: Several Regional Courts have ruled that Dublin transfers to Cyprus can no longer be carried out, due to a lack of reception facility in Cyprus.[121] Most recently, the Regional Court of Middelburg ruled that the accommodation problems in Cyprus were very severe. Of all Dublin returnees, only women and families were assured of receiving shelter.[122] The Council of State handled the case on 10 September 2024.[123] However, the outcome of the case is uncertain, as the Council of State is yet to decide on the matter.

Belgium: On 20 February 2023, the Regional Court of Rotterdam ruled that it is not clear whether the applicant in the case would have access to reception facilities upon return to Belgium. It concluded that the applicant provided concrete indications of his risk of being treated contrary to Article 3 ECHR or Article 4 EU Charter if returned to Belgium. Consequently, the Court annulled the decision and requested the Minister to justify its reliance on the principle of mutual trust.[124] Following this judgment, multiple other Regional Courts decided likewise with regard to single men. For families, women and vulnerable people, the principle of mutual trust was still applicable as they received priority with regards to accommodation. Single men were placed on a waiting list, meaning they had to wait for a number of months.[125] Appeals from men have therefore generally been successful, whereas women, families and vulnerable people can be transferred to Belgium. However, on 13 March 2024, the Council of State ruled that transfers for single men can also continue. It found that even though there are significant problems with the Belgian reception facilities, since asylum applicants can find shelter at locations such as shelters for the homeless, the situation cannot be said to reach the threshold of the situation of extreme material poverty as outlined in the ECJ judgment Jawo.[126] Due to the recent developments in Belgium, the Council of State will decide on this matter once more. The case was handled on 10 December 2024, meaning the decision will be published in the coming months.[127]

For information regarding beneficiaries of international protection, please see First Country of Asylum – EU Member States.

The situation of Dublin returnees

If an asylum applicant is transferred to the Netherlands under the Dublin Regulation, Dutch authorities are responsible for examining the asylum request and will follow the standard asylum procedure.

In the Netherlands, the IND is responsible for all asylum applications, including asylum applications lodged by asylum applicants who are transferred (back) to the Netherlands. The asylum applicant can request asylum in the Netherlands at the COL in Ter Apel or at the AC of Schiphol airport (see Border Procedure).

In the case of a ‘take back’ (terugname) procedure where the asylum applicant has previously lodged an application in the Netherlands, the asylum applicant may file a new request if there are new circumstances. The person in question then has to re-apply for asylum in Ter Apel or Schiphol, which is dealt with as a subsequent application, with the exception of previous applications that were implicitly withdrawn. In ‘take charge’ (overname) procedures the asylum applicant has to apply for asylum if they want international protection.

As mentioned in this report, there have been significant issues with registration and reception of asylum applicants throughout 2022, 2023 and 2024. When an asylum applicant is transferred (back) to the Netherlands on the basis of the Dublin Regulation, they will encounter the same problems as all other asylum applicants in the Netherlands.

[1] Ministry of Justice and Security, De Staat van Migratie 2024, 15, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4fmZwh1.

[2] CJEU, C-582/17 and 583/17, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v. H. And R., 2 April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3wf8cp6. 

[3] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:3672, 31 October 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3uuXtq0.

[4] Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 June 2013 Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsible for Examining an Application for International Protection Lodged in one of the Member States by a Third-Country National or a Stateless Person (recast) [2013] OJ L 180/31 (Dublin Regulation).

[5] Council of State, 1 September 2016, ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2441, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OEsWN4; Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2015:3012, 16 September 2015, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3UzCBZ1.

[6] CJEU, C-648/11, MA and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 6 June 2013, available at: https://bit.ly/3wl1Zrm. 

[7] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2020:1281, 27 May 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3UyXyDG; Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2020:3043, 21 December 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bwxKxN.

[8] Legal Aid Board (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand), AC Signalering nr. 13 2024, 24 October 2024.

[9] Regional Court of Amsterdam, NL22.19633 and NL22.19634, 28 October 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49kyJ2q.

[10] Regional Court, The Hague, Decisions No 17/591 and NL.1428, 17 August 2017.

[11] Regional Court Amsterdam, NL19.30086, 12 February 2020.

[12] Regional Court Middelburg, NL19.28911, 9 January 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/495TWNR.

[13] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2020:2261, 21 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SAoIr3.

[14] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:2508, 23 July 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SRgQ5I; Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:2486, 23 July 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bvXtGG.

[15] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:1873, 25 August 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49s6Eq2; CJEU, C- 568/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E., S., 21 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3SVYdxS.

[16] CJEU, C-568/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E., S., 21 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3SVYdxS.

[17] Council of State, Decision No 201701137/1, 20 March 2017, not published on a publicly available website; see also Regional Court Middelburg, Decision No 17/540, 30 January 2017, not published on a publicly available website.

[18] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2015:370, 5 February 2015, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/498rVoW.

[19] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:2296, 30 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/48h885b.

[20] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:834, 13 March 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/48ZAySB.

[21] Council of State, Decision No 201706799/1/V3, 8 October 2018, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/498FHI8.

[22] Regional Court Den Bosch, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:10025, 14 September 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3UwFUQL; Regional Court Haarlem, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:8698, 3 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OBSHh4.

[23] Regional Court Zwolle, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:13167, 30 November 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Oy5v83; CJEU, C-745/21, L.G. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, 16 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3TPXmyR.

[24] Council of State, Decision No 201806712/1, 10 October 2018, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4by9oE8.

[25] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2020:545, 21 February 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bzQuwK. 

[26] CJEU, C-228/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:934, Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione – Unità Dublino (C‑228/21), DG (C‑254/21), XXX.XX (C‑297/21), PP (C‑315/21), GE (C‑328/21) v CZA (C‑228/21), Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione – Unità Dublino (C‑254/21, C‑297/21, C‑315/21 and C‑328/21), 30 November 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3uj63rT.

[27] Council of State, Decision No 201507801/1, 9 August 2016, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SwwkuQ.

[28] Council of State, Decision No 201505706/1, 19 February 2016, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3HRuU9h.

[29] Council of State, Decision No 201505706/1, 19 February 2016, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3HRuU9h.

[30] Regional Court of Zwolle, Decision No NL18.4980, 1 September 2023.

[31] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1671, 13 June 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3w9wlgL.

[32] See for example Regional Court of Amsterdam, Decision No NL23.40157 and NL23.40159, 27 March 2024.

[33] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:1860, 2 May 2024.

[34] Regional Court of Roermond, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:10838, 12 July 2024.

[35] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:5359, 23 December 2024.

[36] Paragraph C2/5 Aliens Circular.

[37] Paragraph A2/10.1 Aliens Circular.

[38] Article 3.109c(1) Aliens Decree.

[39] Regional Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:4036, 20 April 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4997Heu and Regional Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:2292, 15 February 202.4

[40] Paragraph C2/5 Aliens Circular.

[41] Council of State, Decision No 202302386/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3569, 21 September 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3STIeAm.

[42] Article 30, Aliens Act.

[43] IND, Asylum processing times, available at: https://bit.ly/3IJt8rW.

[44] IND, Asiel: Laatste ontwikkelingen, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3tMTVyZ.

[45] Ministry of Justice and Security, De Staat van Migratie 2024, 97, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4fmZwh1.

[46] Article 72, third paragraph, Aliens Act.

[47] Council of state, Decision No. 201907936/1/V3, 24 February 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49qJmAM.

[48] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:983; ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:984; ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:985, 19 May 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/49waXAn. 

[49] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:1124, 26 May 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bxHNmn.

[50] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:1929, 1 September 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Oysyjq.

[51] CJEU, C-556/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y., 30 March 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3wbmaZ7.

[52] CJEU, C-338/21, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v S.S., N.Z., S.S., 30 March 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3SRiu7o.

[53] Paragraph C2/11 Aliens Circular.

[54] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:4198, 22 November 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OCfz04.

[55] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:4197, 22 November 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/48d4ycD.

[56] CJEU, C‑163/17, Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 19 March 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3wi0WIM.

[57] WBV 2020/22, 27 October 2020.

[58] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:3630, 14 December 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/48grCHg. 

[59] Regional Court of Roermond, Decision No NL23.17941, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:17327, 14 November 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49uaLlj.

[60] Council of State, Decision No ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:4131, 19 December 2018, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/488cXhf.

[61] Council of State, Decision No ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:2792, 19 July 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/48cxHo0; Council of State, Decision No  ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:2042, 27 June 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/489JgMP; Council of State, Decision No 201410601/1, 17 April 2015, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49a1O0D.

[62] Council of State, Decision No ECLI:NL: RVS:2019:3138, 12 September 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49f5BtW.

[63] CJEU, Case C-578/16, C. K. and Others v Republika Slovenija, 16 February 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3OAwO1y.

[64] Council of State, Decision No 201901380/1, 22 August 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4byalMI; Council of State, Decision No 201709136/1, 16 January 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3uCMSsV.

[65] ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Tarakhel v. Switzerland (App. No. 29217/12), of 4 November 2014; available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-148070.

[66] Regional Court of Utrecht, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:19180, 15 November 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49pX1bI.

[67] Regional Court Amsterdam, Decision NL18.8386, 8 June 2018.

[68] Article 62c(1) Aliens Act.

[69] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:2162, 10 August 2017, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bsZiEl.

[70] CJEU, C-228/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:934, Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione – Unità Dublino (C‑228/21), DG (C‑254/21), XXX.XX (C‑297/21), PP (C‑315/21), GE (C‑328/21) v CZA (C‑228/21), Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione – Unità Dublino (C‑254/21, C‑297/21, C‑315/21 and C‑328/21), 30 November 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3uj63rT.

[71] CJEU, Case C-63/15, Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Judgment of 7 June 2016, available at: https://bit.ly/3HTE8lj.

[72] Practice-based observation by the Dutch Council for Refugees, January 2024.

[73] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:2272, 6 July 2018, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4bxBRK1.

[74] Article 30(1) Aliens Act

[75] Article 62(c) Aliens Act.

[76] Articles 69(2)(b) and 82(2)(a) Aliens Act.

[77] Regional Court Haarlem, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:157, 17 January 2021, available in Dutch at https://bit.ly/3UNRPda; CJEU, C-19/21, I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, 01 August 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Sv6MhD.

[78] CJEU, C-19/21, I, S v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, 01 August 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Sv6MhD.

[79] Article 3.109c(1) Aliens Act. This is due to the lack of a rest and preparation period.

[80] Legal Aid Board (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand), AC Signalering nr. 17 2019, 20 September 2019.

[81] ECtHR, 23 March and amended on 15 April 2021, M.T. v the Netherlands, appl. no. 46595/19, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0323DEC004659519, available at: https://bit.ly/3SyPRKX.

[82] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:986, 8 April 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OUrc2j. 

[83] See, for example: Regional Court of Arnhem,  NL22.25014, 23 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3w9xogH; Regional Court of Den Haag, NL22.25592, 12 January 2023.

[84] See, for example: Regional Court of Utrecht, NL22.25746, 13 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/42BdKpJ; Regional Court of Roermond, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:1082, 3 February 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/48azmdO. 

[85] Council of State, Decision No 202300521/1, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:1655, 26 April 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3S0004U.

[86] IND Information Message 2023/86 ’Dublin-Italië’, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SQdwXB.

[87] CJEU, C-185/24, ECLI:EU:C:2024:1036, RL and QS, 19 December 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/4gTwcAo.

[88] ECtHR, Grand Chamber, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (App. No. 30696/09), of 21 January 2011 available here.

[89] Paragraph C2/5.1 Aliens Circular. See also Council of State, Decision No 201009278/1/V3, 14 July 2011, available at: https://bit.ly/499GGYD.

[90] Commission Recommendation of 8.12.2016 addressed to the Member States on the resumption of transfers to Greece under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, available at: https://bit.ly/4hlPfCU.

[91] Council of State, Decision No 201904035/1/V3, 23 October 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OFvr1U; Council of state, Decision No 201904044/1/V3, 23 October 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OD8Z9x.

[92] Council of State, ECLI:NL: RVS:2021:2791, 15 December 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OEffxF.

[93] European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Report to the Maltese Government, 10 March 2021, available via: https://bit.ly/3Jv7sgz.

[94] Council of State, ECLI:NL:ABRVS:2022:1862, ECLI:NL:ABRVS:2022:1863 and ECLI:NL:ABRVS:2022:1864, 6 July 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3OFdGzD.

[95] Council of State, Decision No 202206466/1, ECLI:NL:RV:S2023:3286, 6 September 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SxAOkS.

[96] CJEU, C-228/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:934, Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione – Unità Dublino (C‑228/21), DG (C‑254/21), XXX.XX (C‑297/21), PP (C‑315/21), GE (C‑328/21) v CZA (C‑228/21), Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione – Unità Dublino (C‑254/21, C‑297/21, C‑315/21 and C‑328/21), 30 November 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3uj63rT.

[97] IND, Information Message IB 2023/84 Toelatingsbeleid en non-refoulement, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WFBA2b.

[98] Council of State, Decision No 201507248/1, 26 November 2015, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3UtfS0W.

[99] State Secretary (now Minister), Letter TK 2017-2018, 19 637, No 2355, 27 November 2017.

[100] KST 19637, No. 2374, 22 March 2018.

[101] KST 19637, No 2374, 22 March 2018.

[102] Regional Court of Den Bosch, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:10735, 4 October 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3HUwHuc; CJEU, C-614/21, G v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, 15 March 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/485n4n2.

[103] Regional Court of Den Bosch,  ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:5724,  15 June 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3wk1Lkj.

[104] Council of State, Persagenda, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3UNuIzl.

[105] CJEU, Conclusions of the Advocate General, ECLI:EU:C:2023:593, X. v. the Netherlands, 13 July 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/49xFY7j.

[106] CJEU, Case C-392/22, X. v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 29 February 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/3vrxgJu.

[107] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3455, 4 September 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40gg5Wj.

[108] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:1645, 29 July 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49u0DJf.

[109] Regional Court of Utrecht, Decision No NL23.20052, 1 August 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/495WUlt.

[110] Regional Court of Haarlem, Decision No NL23.30353 and NL23.30354, 8 November 2023.

[111] Council of State, Decision No ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:4844, 27 December 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49f7qXO.

[112] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1042 and ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1043, 13 April 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/42uYhYx. 

[113] State Secretary (now Minister), Letter to the House or representatives no. 19673 3061, 20 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3XOwka8.

[114] See for example Regional Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:8123, 6 July 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/497kmi1. 

[115] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3411, 13 September 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/42xjfWG.

[116] Regional Court of Amsterdam, Decision No NL24.22621, 17 July 2024.

[117] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:4037, 9 October 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/42d4xG7.

[118] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:885, 4 April 2017, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/41RrsVQ.

[119] Regional court of Utrecht, NL22.7820 and NL22.7821, 15 May 2022; Regional Court Haarlem, NL22.12598, 29 July 2022.

[120] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3133, 16 August 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/42z1eHq.

[121] Regional Court Zwolle, NL22.3233 and NL22.3236, 5 March 2022; Regional Court of Amsterdam, NL22.3404, 15 March 2022; Regional Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:14245, 15 December 2021; Regional Courts of Haarlem, NL21.2036, 31 March 2021.

[122] Regional Court Middelburg, Decision No NL23.18813, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:15644, 12 October 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SGCusq.

[123] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3194, 7 August 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4haHXCg.

[124] Regional Court Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:1853, 20 February 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SAsaC1. 

[125] See for example Regional Court of Utrecht, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:13006, 23 August 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SBCSYS.

[126] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:896, 13 March 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3U3FNKX.

[127] Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:4803, 22 November 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4gRoDKB.