A Syrian national applied for international protection in the Netherlands. A Eurodac hit showed that he had previously applied for international protection in Romania. The Netherlands therefore requested Romania to take back the applicant under Article 18(2)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation. The State Secretary thus decided not to examine the application and to transfer the applicant to Romania.

The applicant appealed this decision and claimed that the principle of interstate trust could no longer be relied upon in respect of Romania. He stated that there were pushbacks in Romania, not only at the borders but also concerning asylum applicants that have been returned from other Member States. In support of this, the applicant referred to a judgment of the District Court of the Hague seated in Amsterdam of 3 February 2023 (ECLI:EN:RBDHA:2023:3170) and a report by KlikAktiv of December 2021. Moreover, the applicant claimed that he was at risk of indirect refoulement, as he could be returned to Syria after being transferred to Romania.

The District Court of the Hague seated in Middelburg stated that pushbacks took place in Romania and that pushbacks are generally regarded as a fundamental systemic flaw in the asylum procedure reaching the particularly high threshold of severity. However, it noted that the mere fact that pushbacks take place in a Member State is not in itself sufficient to conclude that Romania was not complying with its international obligations vis-à-vis Dublin transferees. The court stated that the applicant had not been able to provide concrete indications on the basis of which it could be concluded that, as a Dublin returnee, he would also run a real risk of being deported from Romania to a third country by means of pushbacks, without having been able to lodge an application for international protection and go through an asylum procedure.

The court went on to note that KlikAktiv's report offered insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claims. It noted that KlikAktiv's report only mentioned a few cases, which did not contain sufficient concrete evidence to conclude that there were pushbacks of Dublin returnees. The court did not follow the judgment submitted by the applicant from the Amsterdam court.

Furthermore, the court stated that the Romanian authorities had guaranteed, with the transfer agreement, that the applicant's asylum application would be processed in compliance with international conventions and EU law. The fact that Romania subsequently accepted the take back request on a different ground than requested did not change this.

Lastly, the court also noted that it follows from the case law of the court that the applicant must demonstrate that a difference in protection policy is so obvious and fundamental that he runs a real risk of refoulement after transfer, which the applicant had not done.

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