The applicant and her minor child, Syrian nationals, applied for asylum in the Netherlands and the State Secretary decided not to process the application because Denmark was considered responsible according to the Dublin III Regulation. The applicants contested the decision and argued that the Netherlands cannot rely on the principle of mutual trust and legitimate expectations because Denmark was allegedly not complying with this principle; she argued that following her separation from her husband, her residence permit was withdrawn as Damascus was considered to be safe for return by the Danish authorities. The applicant claimed difficulties in accessing housing, social services and employment in Denmark and no prospects of success for an asylum application.

The Court of the Hague rejected the appeal and noted the State Secretary was right to rely on the principle of mutual trust, that although the Danish authorities are revoking residence permits and considering that the situation in Damascus does not amount to an indiscriminate violence, however a case by case analysis is being conducted. Moreover, the Court of the Hague noted that in case of disagreement with a decision, the applicant can use legal remedies including to submit an application before the ECtHR. With regard to indirect refoulement, the Court of the Hague stated that with the take back agreement, the Danish authorities gave assurances that the applicant will be granted access to the asylum procedure and that her asylum application will be carefully reviewed.