The applicant, a Nigerian national, applied for asylum in the Netherlands, after lodging three asylum applications in Italy and one in Belgium, and informed the Dutch asylum authority that he had become the victim of human smugglers in Italy. Netherlands submitted to Italy an application to take back the person concerned, within the meaning of Article 18(1)(d) of the Dublin III Regulation. Italy accepted the take back. The asylum authority decided not to examine the application with the reasoning that this was Italy’s responsibility and informed the applicant accordingly. The applicant challenged the decision.

The District Court of The Hague referred the following questions to the CJEU:

Question 1(a): Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law when the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC commences, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period commences by operation of law when the third-country national notifies (communicates) the trafficking in human beings to the Netherlands authorities?

Question 1(b): Since the Netherlands has failed to specify in national law the duration of the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the reflection period ends by operation of law once the trafficking in human beings has been reported or the third-country national concerned indicates that he no longer wishes to report such trafficking?

Question 2: Are expulsion orders within the meaning of Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC to be understood to include orders for the removal of a third-country national from the territory of one Member State to the territory of another Member State?

Question 3(a): Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude the adoption of a transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article?

Question 3(b): Does Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC preclude, during the reflection period guaranteed in the first paragraph of that article, the enforcement of a transfer decision which has already been taken, or the preparations for such enforcement?

The CJEU ruled that Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2004/81/EC on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘removal order’ covers Dublin transfers between Member States and that Article 6(2) of Directive 2004/81/EC precludes the implementation of a Dublin transfer decision during the reflection period guaranteed in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/81/EC, but does not preclude the adoption of such a Dublin transfer decision or taking preparatory measures for its implementation, as long as preparatory measures do not render such a reflection period ineffective.