The case concerned a Syrian national applicant who applied for asylum in the Netherlands. The State Secretary for Justice and Security dismissed the applicant’s request for asylum, and decided that the applicant be transferred to Italy, where he had previously lodged an application for international protection.

The applicant claimed that the principle of mutual trust could not be relied upon in respect of Italy. In his view, there were serious systemic errors and structural shortcomings in the reception system. In this context, the applicant pointed to reports from the Dutch Council for Refugees, the Swiss Refugee Council, Borderline-europe and the Asylum Information Database (AIDA), and a 'circular letter' of 5 December 2022 from which it followed that Italy had requested Member States to temporarily suspend transfers under the Dublin Regulation in connection with a problem with reception facilities.

The Court of the Hague stated that the applicant’s statements about the conditions in Italy were not sufficient, since he had those experiences as an illegal immigrant, while he would return as a Dublin returnee. Furthermore, the applicant had not substantiated that he could not complain to the Italian authorities if there were problems upon return or that the authorities would be unable or unwilling to help him. Since the principle of mutual trust can be assumed, Italy could be expected to comply with international agreements, including the prohibition of (indirect) refoulement.

Furthermore, the court stated that, from the circular letter, it only followed that there was a temporary, de facto transfer impediment and not that there were structural and fundamental shortcomings in reception conditions.

Lastly, the court stated that the mere fact that there had been no transfers to Italy for some time and that it was unknown how long the suspension would last, did not mean that the interstate principle of mutual trust could no longer be invoked in respect of Italy. Therefore, the suspension of transfers did not make the transfer decision unlawful. Thus, the claimant could be transferred if the transfer impediment was removed within the transfer period.