The applicant, also parent on behalf of his minor child, appealed against the decision of the State Secretary not to consider their applications for international protection because Italy was the state responsible to deal with it, according to the Dublin III Regulation. The applicants argued that there are serious systemic deficiencies in the asylum system and in the reception conditions and a transfer would entail a violation the Article 3 ECHR.

The Court of the Hague rejected the appeal and based on various country reports (AIDA reports, official reply from Italy) and jurisprudence from the German Higher Administrative Court, 21 July 2021, and the ECtHR, namely M.T. (Eritrea) v the Netherlands, 23 March 2021, found that the applicants would have access to primary care (CAS), if one has to stay there for a short period, and is of acceptable quality. The court also noted that, unlike the applicant’s allegations, the circular letter of 8 February 2021 showed that families with minor children are eligible for SAI care. Moreover the Court relied on the AB judgment, where the ECtHR also ruled that the determining authority may rely on the interstate principle of trust and that this does not alter the fact that there are no reserved places in the SAI reception for Dublin returnees.

With regard to the asylum procedure, the Court held that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim on systemic deficiencies, on the contrary it results from jurisprudence that Italy respects the CEAS and moreover the Italian authorities gave guarantees to process the applicant’s request for international protection by respecting the obligations deriving from the EU law.