The case concerned an applicant who contested the Dublin transfer to Spain and alleged that the State Secretary should have analysed the case because she is illiterate and dependant on her son who lives in the Netherlands. The Court of the Hague annulled the decision of the State Secretary and referred the case back for re-examination. The State Secretary contested the decision and argued before the Council of State that it is primarily up to the applicant to demonstrate with objective (medical) documents that she needs help and is dependent on her son for this. In the absence of objective documents, the applicant must demonstrate the reasons why they are not available or cannot be submitted. The Council of State noted that the applicant only submitted a statement of her son who alleged that his mother is of advanced age, illiterate and with medical problems, and her son is willing to help her. The Council of State allowed the appeal and stated that the applicant has not submitted objective documents to substantiate the alleged dependency relationship, nor has it explained why this cannot be expected of her. Moreover, the State Secretary rightly considered that the son's statement does not constitute convincing information as referred to in Article 11, second paragraph of the Dublin III Regulation because it is not clear from this statement which help is needed, in what way a concrete interpretation is provided and whether the help can then only be provided by the son. The State Secretary has included in his assessment that the son has been living in the Netherlands for more than ten years and that the applicant was able to stay in the country of origin for quite some time without the presence of her son.

The applicant also appealed and argued that she has no social network in Spain and that she risk being subject to inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to Spain due to conditions there. Based on information from the AIDA country report, the Council of State mentioned that although the reception conditions in Spain can therefore be improved, there is no indication that there are structural shortcomings in the reception conditions for Dublin applicants and that reach a particularly high threshold of seriousness to fall under the scope of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the ECHR. In addition, the AIDA report shows that Dublin applicants can have an effective remedy in Spain against any deficiencies in reception conditions. The appeal was rejected on this ground.