The applicant Syrian national contested a Dublin transfer to Cyprus and the Court of the Hague annulled the decision because it considered that the State Secretary has insufficiently reasoned on the applicant access to reception and to an effective remedy in Cyprus. The State Secretary contested the decision and the Council of State reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to rebut the presumption deriving from the application of the principle of inter-state mutual trust between Member States.

The Council of State noted that the documents submitted by the applicant do not provide sufficient evidence that he would not have access to reception as a single male asylum seeker since, based on the AIDA report, it can be noted that the Asylum Service offers various forms of reception shelter and if the applicant has to look independently for accommodation the social services offer support and maintain contact with asylum seekers. The State Secretary argued that the conditions of the Cypriot system of funded legal aid — sufficient means test and that the appeal has a real chance of success (‘merits' test) — are in principle in accordance with Article 20(3) and Article 21(2) of the revised Asylum Procedures Directive and the Council of State noted that the applicant has not make it plausible that he cannot pay for legal aid himself. 

On the access to an effective remedy, the Council of State observed that based on available information, including the AIDA updated report, the provision of information and the possibilities of appeal in Cyprus are effective and adequate. The appeal of the State Secretary was allowed, and the Dublin transfer decision was confirmed, in the absence of evidence that the transfer would put the applicant at risk of treatment contrary to the Article 3 ECHR.