A Syrian applicant with two minor children applied for international protection in the Netherlands. The State Secretary for Justice and Security found that Denmark was responsible for her and her children’s applications for international protection.

The State Secretary for Justice and Security based its request and decision on the information that the applicant had a valid residence permit in Denmark, under Article 12(1) of the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant stated that this was an error since Denmark had accepted the request based on Article 12(4), since the residence permit had expired.

The District Court of The Hague seated in Arnhem stated that, although there was indeed a difference in the legal basis used between the Member States, that did not amount to a careless conduct by the Secretary of State, and that even though the Danish authorities subsequently considered themselves responsible on another ground, it did not affect the legality of the transfer agreement.

The applicant also claimed that there was an obvious and fundamental difference in protection policy for Syrian nationals between Denmark and the Netherlands and that she therefore was at risk of indirect refoulement if returned to Denmark. She contended that it was sufficiently plausible, based on, among others, case law of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board (Flygtningenævnet) from which it followed that persons can in principle be deported to Syria if their individual circumstances do not prevent it. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that Denmark treats refugees poorly and that she would be placed in a detention centre with her children after the rejection of her application for international protection, and that this would be a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The applicant also raised the point that she belonged to the group of vulnerable persons as a single mother and due to her mental state.

The court found that it had not been shown that the Danish authorities would be unable or unwilling to help the applicant. The Secretary of State therefore did not have to ask for individual guarantees for the applicants. The court also found that it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that there was an obvious and fundamental difference in protection policies between the two Member States and that the applicant therefore had not proven that there was a risk of indirect refoulement. The principle of interstate trust could thus be relied upon in the present case.

Finally, the applicant contended that the Netherlands should take responsibility for her application under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation. She pointed out that she and her children were particularly vulnerable because of the abuse and threats from her ex-partner. Because of these traumatic experiences, she underlined that she wanted to stay with her younger brother living in the Netherlands. The court found no reason to apply Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation, stating, among others, that medical facilities in Denmark were of comparable quality to those in the Netherlands.

The District Court of The Hague seated in Arnhem rejected the appeal in its entirety.