The case concerned a Syrian applicant from the Tartous region whose asylum application was rejected as inadmissible because the State Secretary considered that the applicant enjoys international protection in Denmark since 12 December 2016 and he has to renew his residence permit every two years. The applicant contested the decision and alleged that he is at risk of refoulement because he fears that the Danish authorities would revoke his status and residence permit or not renew, thus he would risk being returned to Syria. The applicant alleged that the Danish authorities have adopted a significantly different protection policy for Syrian nationals than the Netherlands, and this may result in a real risk of indirect refoulement for the applicant if first returned to Denmark.

The Court of the Hague rejected the appeal as unfounded, by judgement of 7 November 2022. In a second appeal the applicant contested the lower court judgment before the Council of State. The Council of State referred to its previous ruling of 6 July 2022 (Applicants v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), 202105784/1/V3, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1864), where it found "obvious and fundamental differences" in asylum policy between Denmark and the Netherlands with regard to Syrian applicants. The Council of State, similar as the lower court, proceeded to analyse whether there is still this difference in protection. In the judgement of 6 July 2022, the court considered that the difference between the Danish and the Dutch protection policy for Syrians is that Denmark considers the Damascus region as a safe area and that it therefore allows Syrians from the Damascus region to return, and they are not automatically granted international protection, while the Netherlands has not designated Damascus as a safe area. In the present case, the court of the Hague rejected the appeal and considered that the applicant did not make it plausible that Denmark has a similar policy for Syrians from the Tartous region as for Syrians from the Damascus region. Therefore, according to the court of the Hague, he has not made it plausible that his international protection status will be withdrawn, terminated, or not extended due to the applicable protection policy for Syrians in Denmark. The applicant has also not made it plausible that due to the difference between the Danish and Dutch protection policy for Syrians, there is a real risk of indirect refoulement upon deportation to Denmark in his case.

The Council of State noted that since the judgement of 6 July 2022, the situation has changed in the policy of the Danish authorities and now there is no longer a risk of indirect refoulement for Syrians if they are returned to Denmark.

The Council of State noted that the Danish authorities have changed their assessment of the general security situation in the Damascus region and are currently only reassessing a granted residence status for Syrians from the Damascus region if it has been granted on general grounds. Therefore, residence statuses on individual grounds will not be reassessed and there are no forced deportations to Syria. The Danish Immigration Service in the first instance and the Refugee Appeals Board in the second and final instance assess whether an applicant qualifies for protection on the basis of the general situation and the individual circumstances. The Council of State agreed with the State Secretary that the assessment carried out by the Danish authorities is therefore not essentially different from the way the Dutch authorities assess the security situation in Syria.

The Council of State took into consideration in its assessment that the applicant has not submitted any information from public sources showing that there is an obvious and fundamental difference between the Danish and the Dutch protection policy for Syrians from the Tartous region. 

The Council of State ruled that there is no longer an "obvious and fundamental difference" between the Danish and Dutch protection policy for Syrian aliens and that the information was obtained by the State Secretary from the Danish authorities. The court concluded from that information that the Danish authorities, like other EU member states, do not want to have relations with the Syrian regime and that no forced deportations are taking place to Syria. On the individual circumstances, the court mentioned that the applicant did not make it plausible that the Danish authorities will revoke, terminate or not renew his international protection, thus there is no risk of indirect refoulement.