The applicant is a Libyan national who requested international protection in Iceland on 7 December 2021. During the initial examination of the applicant’s passport, it was noted that the applicant was in possession of a valid visa issued by Spain. The applicant stated that he had only spent a few hours in Spain before travelling to the Netherlands and then Iceland. The applicant affirmed that Iceland had always been the intended destination. On 24 January 2022, the Directorate of Immigration of Iceland sent a take back request to the Spanish authorities in respect of the applicant pursuant to Article 12(2) or (3) of the Dublin III Regulation which was accepted on 4 February 2022. The applicant was invited for an interview with the Directorate of Immigration on 4 April 2022, following which the Directorate of Immigration issued a decision, on 2 June 2022, stating that the applicant’s request for international protection would not be examined in Iceland and that he would be transferred to Spain where the request could be examined. The applicant appealed this decision on 16 June 2022 stating that the Directorate of Immigration did not take his individual circumstances into account.

The Directorate of Immigration stated that the transfer of the applicant would not violate Article 42 of the Act on Foreign Nationals and there was therefore no requirement to examine the substance of the applicant’s request for international protection. The directorate noted that the Spanish authorities would be responsible for examining the substance of the case.

The applicant claimed that access to the protection system in Spain was restricted and that the conditions for applicants were not decent. He further claimed that Spanish authorities discriminate against applicants of Moroccan and Libyan origin by refusing to accept their applications for international protection. The applicant asserted that the decision issued by the Directorate of Immigration was based on information from limited chapters of reports and that they failed to comply with their duty to comprehensively assess the applicant’s individual circumstances. The applicant further asserted that the conditions in Spain were grounds for stopping a transfer under Article 36(2) of the Act on Foreign Nationals.

The Immigration Appeals Board analysed case law from the ECtHR as well as reports from various civil society actors and international organisations relating to the treatment of applicants for international protection in Spain.

The board also took the applicant’s individual circumstances into consideration. The board noted that the applicant reported having difficulties breathing as well as issues with his eyes and dental problems. In relation to healthcare, the board found that applicants for international protection are guaranteed access to basic healthcare services under the same conditions as Spanish nationals. The board further noted that the applicant was not considered to have a serious or life-threatening illness which would require treatment that was available in Iceland but not in the receiving state. The board therefore considered that the appellant’s circumstances related to health were not such that they would require Iceland to stop their transfer under Article 32 or Article 36 of the Act on Foreign Nationals.

The board noted that Spain provided practical protection against refoulement and that Spanish authorities take into consideration an applicant’s individual circumstances while examining their request for international protection. The board also noted that the applicant would have access to judicial remedies before national courts and the ECtHR if he believed that he would be returned to a country where his life or freedom would be at risk.

The Immigration Appeals Board concluded that their analysis indicated that the applicant would not be at risk of experiencing treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if transferred to Spain. The board thus concluded that there was no breach of Article 42(1) of the Act on Foreign Nationals and upheld the decision of the Directorate of Immigration to not examine the substance of the applicant’s request for international protection.