An Egyptian national applied for international protection in Greece in 2019 when he was still a minor. When he applied, he expressed the wish to be reunited with S, his uncle, also an Egyptian national, who resided regularly in the Netherlands and who had given his consent to this. In 2020, the Greek authorities requested the Dutch authorities to take charge of the applicant, under the Dublin III Regulation. The request was rejected on the grounds that the identity of the applicant and the alleged relationship to S could not be established. In addition, a request for reconsideration was rejected.

I and S lodged a complaint with the Secretary of State against the refusal to take charge. The Secretary of State dismissed this claim as inadmissible on the grounds that the Dublin III Regulation does not provide for the possibility of applicants for international protection to challenge such a rejection decision. The Court of The Hague made a request for a preliminary ruling before the CJEU to determine if the persons concerned have the right to a judicial remedy.

The CJEU held that the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with the EU Charter provides a right of appeal to the unaccompanied minor against the decision to take charge. On the other hand, the relative of this minor does not benefit from such a right to appeal. The court observed that even if, on the basis of a literal interpretation, the Dublin III Regulation does not appear to grant a right of appeal to the applicant for international protection solely for the purpose of contesting a decision of transfer, it does not however exclude that a right of appeal is also granted to the unaccompanied minor applicant for the purpose of contesting a decision to refuse to accept a take charge request.

The court also noted that the rules of secondary EU law must be interpreted and applied with respect for fundamental rights.
The court highlighted that the judicial protection of an unaccompanied minor applicant cannot vary according to whether this applicant is the subject of a transfer decision by the requesting Member State, or of a decision by which the requested Member State rejects the request to take charge of the applicant.

The CJEU noted also that unaccompanied minors require, because of their particular vulnerability, specific procedural safeguards.

With regard to the relative of the minor, the CJEU held that no provision of the regulation confers him rights which he could claim in court against a decision not to take charge, and this relative cannot derive a right of appeal against such a decision solely on the basis of Article 47 of the EU Charter.