The case concerned an applicant from Eritrea whose application for international protection was not considered on the merits, as the State Secretary for Justice and Security considered Italy to be the responsible Member State under the Dublin III regulation. The applicant appealed the decision to the Council of State.

The applicant claimed that if transferred to Italy, he would run a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter. In this context, the applicant pointed to the 'circular letter' of 5 December 2022 and the subsequent notification from the Italian authorities, which, according to the applicant, showed that Italy could not offer shelter. In these, the Italian authorities have stated that, due to the high influx of asylum seekers, there is a lack of available reception facilities in Italy.

The Secretary of State argued that the information from the Italian authorities did not implicate that there is no reception available in Italy, but only that the reception facilities were under pressure. Furthermore, it argued that the impediment to transfer was merely temporary and could therefore not render unlawful the determination of a Member State as responsible.

The Council of State disagreed with the Secretary of State and deemed that the applicant had submitted objective information that provided a basis for the assertion that reception conditions in Italy contain systemic errors and that the Secretary of State could no longer rely on the presumption that Italy would comply with its international obligations. The Council of State noted that it was not possible, particularly in view of the lack of information since 7 February 2023, to determine when the lack of reception facilities would be resolved and transfers to Italy could be resumed. The Council of State underlined, that although this did not necessarily mean Italian authorities were indifferent to the situation of asylum applicants, however there was a real risk that, without their own will and choices, asylum applicants may, upon transfer to Italy, find themselves in a state of very far-reaching material deprivation, within the meaning of paragraph 92 of Jawo, preventing them from meeting the most important basic needs, such as shelter, food and running water. The Council of State noted that the burden of proof on the applicability of the interstate principle of mutual trust shifted to the national authorities in view of reports about a lack of reception facilities in Italy.

Under these circumstances, the Council of State found that the principle of interstate protection could not be applied with regard to Italy. Therefore, the transfer decision taken by the Secretary of State was considered unlawful and was annulled.