The case concerns the Dublin transfer of a family with children, of Nigerian nationality, to Italy. The applicants were regarded as particularly vulnerable within the meaning of Tarakhel (Afghanistan) vs. Switzerland. In an interim ruling of June 2019 (Applicants (Nigeria) vs State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid)), the Court of the Hague ruled to proceed to appoint an UNHCR expert to investigate the reception and care of families with children in Italy. In October 2019, the Court further ruled to adjourn the judgment pending a ruling by the ECtHR on the transfer of particularly vulnerable aliens to Italy under the Dublin Regulation (M.T. (Eritrea) vs the Netherlands).

At the time of the interim judgments cited above, on the basis of amended Italian legislation (the Salvini Decree), reception centers that met the requirements set by the ECtHR in Tarakhel were no longer accessible to particularly vulnerable applicants. In M.T. (Eritrea) vs the Netherlands, the ECtHR ruled that the consequences of the Salvini Decree have been reversed as a result of new legislation. The ECtHR noted that particularly vulnerable applicants have been received in the same locations and under the same conditions as before the entry into force of the Salvini Decree and that these reception locations currently meet the necessary requirements.

The Court of the Hague followed the judgment of the ECtHR and ruled that the quality of the asylum reception in Italy is adequate to particularly vulnerable applicants, and that sufficient access to medical facilities is offered. Considering a letter of the applicants claiming the long duration of the procedure and the associated uncertainty has had a major impact on their existence, the court considered this plausible but necessary to reach a final assessment on the grounds of appeal and on whether there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The court further noted that it was the responsibility of the State Secretary to further investigate whether the general reception conditions were adequate for the applicants at the time they were to be transferred, and since the State Secretary did not do so, the court would annul the contested decision. However, in view of the judgment of the ECtHR, the court ruled to uphold the legal consequences of the annulled decision.