The applicant, Syrian national, applied for asylum in the Netherlands and based on EURODAC information it was found that the applicant had already been granted international protection in Denmark on 28 January 2016. The State Secretary decided not to process the application and requested Denmark to take the applicant back under the Return Directive. The Danish authorities refused the transfer and informed that the applicant’s status was revoked due to the commission of a criminal offence. Consequently, the Netherlands submitted a take back request based on Article 18 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation, request accepted by Denmark. The applicant appealed against the transfer and argued that a transfer would lead to indirect refoulement because Denmark had designated Damascus area and the surroundings as safe. The applicant provided reports from ECRE and Amnesty International concerning the policy in Denmark, where third country nationals' residence permits were revoked and deportation to Denmark was considered possible. The applicant argued that his residence permit was revoked for reasons of public order, and he would be at risk of being returned to Syria after a transfer to Denmark.

The Court of the Hague rejected the appeal and noted that Denmark is bound by the Dublin III Regulation and there is no indication that the latter will not comply with its international obligations; moreover, there was no indication that the Netherlands cannot rely on the principle of mutual trust between Member States with regard to Denmark nor to consider that Denmark would disregard the principle of non-refoulement when assessing a return to Syria.

The Court of the Hague also noted that the applicant was not from Damascus or neighbouring areas and his allegations that Denmark will expand the regions to be considered safe for deportation were not proven. Also, the allegations related to detention in Denmark after transfer or lack of legal aid were not sufficiently substantiated and the court dismissed the appeal.