The applicant Syrian national has applied for asylum in the Netherlands and the State Secretary decided not to process the application as Romania is responsible state based on the Dublin III Regulation. The Romanian authorities accepted the Secretary of State's readmission request on 4 March 2022. However, one of the issues at stake in the case was whether the State Secretary had reason to accept the processing of the asylum application, because the Romanian authorities have announced that they will suspend all incoming Dublin transfers due to the large influx of displaced persons from Ukraine. (Parliamentary letter of 17 March 2022, Parliamentary Papers 2021/22, 19 637, no. 2834, p. 12).
The applicant contested the transfer decision and argued that the Netherlands is the state responsible because it is still unknown how long the influx of displaced Ukrainian nationals to Romania will last and how long the situation continues and when Romania will effectively fulfilled its responsibilities under the Dublin Regulation. The Court of the Hague rejected the appeal and the applicant contested the decision before the Council of State.
The applicant complained that the lower court wrongly followed the position of the State Secretary that Romania's suspension of incoming Dublin transfers as a result of the war in Ukraine and the influx of displaced Ukrainians does not lead to the Netherlands being obliged to take care of the processing of the asylum application. The applicant argued that the lower court wrongly assessed that the suspension of the transfers by Romania should be seen as a temporary de facto impediment.
The Council of State reiterated that unlike displaced persons from Ukraine who are covered by the Temporary Protection Directive, the Dublin Regulation still applies to persons from other countries seeking international protection. The principle of interstate trust is the starting point and by accepting the readmission application the Romanian authorities have promised to process the asylum application of the foreign national with due observance of the European asylum guidelines and international obligations.
The Council of State further mentioned that in the information contained in the letter to parliament, it is only stated that Romania has announced that it will suspend Dublin transfers and not that Romania is refusing claim requests. This is an indication of a temporary measure, and it also indicates that Romania believes that it is ultimately the responsible Member State that must assess the asylum application. Secondly, the letter states that urgent matters can still be submitted by the Repatriation and Departure Service for transfer to Romania. According to the letter, there is an urgent matter if it concerns a transfer from custody or a transfer with a short final transfer period remaining.
Although it is unknown how long the situation of influx of displaced persons from Ukraine will last and how long Romania intends to suspend Dublin transfers, however, the Council of State considered that there is no reason for the State Secretary to take charge of the processing of the asylum application or to contact the Romanian authorities prior to the transfer decision, as the applicant argued. The Council of State mentioned the binding transfer terms of Article 29, first and second paragraph of the Dublin Regulation, and the fact that uncertainty about transfer of a third country national is of limited duration. The Council of State referred to the CJEU judgment of 19 March 2019, Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2019:218, paragraph 59. The appeal was rejected.