The case concerned a request for a preliminary ruling made in proceedings between a third-country national from Syria and the State Secretary for Justice and Security in the Netherlands, which decided to refuse to process the application for international protection and to transfer her to Lithuania, considered the Member State responsible for examining that application.

The applicant, who had a visa issued by the Representation of the Republic of Lithuania in Belarus, valid from 10 August 2016 to 9 November 2017, left Syria in July 2017, and crossed Türkiye, Greece, Lithuania and Poland, to arrive in the Netherlands on 27 September 2017. The next day she lodged an application for asylum in the Netherlands and on 10 October 2017, she married a third-country national who had already been granted asylum in the Netherlands. On 12 October 2017, the Dutch authorities addressed a take charge request to Lithuania, on the ground that Lithuania was deemed responsible for examining her asylum application, under Article 12(2) or (3) of the Dublin III Regulation. The Lithuanian authorities agreed and the State Secretary issued on 2 February 2018 a draft decision to transfer her to Lithuania. The applicant submitted on 16 February 2018 that she was pregnant. On 12 March 2018, the State Secretary decided not to examine her asylum application, which the applicant challenged before the District Court of The Hague alleging infringements of Article 9, Article 16(1) and Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, read in the light of the best interests of the unborn child as provided in national law of the Netherlands. 

On 20 June 2018, the applicant gave birth to her daughter in the Netherlands and she submitted on 3 August 2018, a DNA report proving that her husband was the father of the child. The daughter was granted a fixed-term legal residence permit, with the restriction that the child was to reside with her father.

The court examined whether Article 16(1) of the Dublin III Regulation must be applied where there is a dependency link between an applicant and the spouse who is legally resident in the Member State where the application was lodged, or between the unborn child of that applicant and the spouse who is the father of the child. In addition the CJEU examined whether Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation precludes national legislation that requires national authorities, on the sole ground of the best interests of the child, to examine an application lodged by a pregnant third-country national, even though the Dublin III Regulation would indicate that another Member State is responsible for that application.

The court noted that a dependency link between an applicant and a spouse is not covered by Article 16(1) of the Dublin III Regulation. The court observed that the provision at issue applies to a dependency link involving the applicant, whether he/she is dependent on the persons listed in that provision or those persons are dependent on the applicant, and it does not apply to the dependency between the child and persons listed in that provision.

The court also recalled that, under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, there is nothing preventing a Member State from examining such an application on the ground that such an examination is in the best interests of the child.

In addition, the CJEU noted the specificity of the Dutch national law, namely the provision of the Netherlands Civil Code under which an unborn child must be deemed to already have been born where that is in his or her interest and that this alone requires the national authorities to examine an application lodged by a pregnant third-country national, even though other criteria laid down in Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation indicate that another Member State is responsible for that application. Thus, the court noted that national law requires the Netherlands to exercise the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The CJEU held that Article 16(1) of the Dublin III Regulation does not apply to a dependency link between an applicant for international protection and his/her spouse who is legally resident in the Member State where the application was lodged, and also does not apply to a dependency link between the unborn child of that applicant and the spouse who is the father of the child. In addition, Article 17(1) does not preclude national legislation that requires national authorities, on the sole ground of the best interests of the child, to examine an application lodged by a pregnant third-country national, even though Articles 7 to 15 the Dublin III Regulation indicate that another Member State is responsible for that application.