The applicant, Pakistani national, has applied for asylum in the Netherlands and the latter decided that Germany is the state responsible to process the application. The applicant contested the transfer, alleging a risk of violation of Article 3 ECHR due to risk of indirect refoulement.

The Court of the Hague first assessed ex officio if the appeal is admissible and found that in a letter of 30 August 2022 the applicant has been given the opportunity to submit the grounds for appeal within 5 working day lapsing from the date on which the letter was sent, but no later than 6 September 2022. The applicant submitted the grounds on 8 September 2022, thus too late. The applicant argued that the delay was excusable because his representative secretariat made a confusion with another appeal for another applicant. The court disagreed with the applicant and analysed whether there are reasons for disregarding the inadmissibility of the appeal due to special facts and circumstances in the case.

The applicant invoked a difference in policy between Germany and Netherlands concerning Pakistani Ahmadis, namely that Germany is adopting a settlement alternative for this category and the Netherlands is not. 

The Court of the Hague considered that the applicant did not put forward plausible evidence to prove a fundamental difference in protection between Germany and the Netherlands. It found that the Netherlands, unlike in Germany, considers Ahmadis from Pakistan as a risk group, but this does not mean that there is an obvious and fundamental difference in protection policy. The court reiterated that each case is analysed on an individual basis in Germany also with regard to the risk of refoulement and the applicant has to demonstrate that his problems lead to a well-founded fear of persecution. The court stated that it cannot ascertain in advance, without a substantive assessment of the asylum application whether Netherlands would grant the applicant international protection. Also, the applicant did not substantiate that the German authorities will not protect against refoulement.

The Court of the Hague concluded that the applicant did not prove a real risk of refoulement, and the delay was not excusable, thus the appeal was rejected as inadmissible.