The case concerned an appeal submitted by the applicant against the CGRS decision to transfer her to Germany, based on the Dublin procedure. During the interview, the applicant mentioned that he was brought by an unknown person to Belgium , that he came to work and that he opposed to a Dublin transfer to Germany because of alleged violence against him and four incidents of being raped while in reception center. The German authorities accepted the take back request and informed that the applicant must go back to the registration center after the implementation of the transfer. The CGRS considered that since the applicant first applied in Germany for international protection, the later was responsible to examine the application. It added that there were no indications of risks of breaches of Article 3 ECHR for the transfer and that the sexual violence experience cannot lead to the conclusion that the German authorities will not fulfil their obligations or that this affects the functioning of the asylum authorities and the courts in Germany. The CGRS considered that the applicant could use domestic remedies or complain before the ECtHR if he considered to have been treated unduly by the German authorities.

In the appeal, the CALL suspended the implementation of the Dublin transfer. It noted that the applicant alleged an infringement of the principle of due diligence and Articles 1 and 3 of the ECHR, 42 of the Aliens Act, 24 of the recast APD and 11 of the recast RCD. The CALL noted that it has not been demonstrated that the German authorities were informed of the fact that the applicant was victim of rape in a German reception centre and no individual guarantees were requested. The CALL stated that according to Article 31 and 32 of the Dublin III Regulation, the national authorities must communicate to the Member State responsible any information which is essential to ensure that the rights of the person are respected for the transfer and immediate measures can be taken to ensure special needs are met.

The CALL noted that the contested decision does not expressly doubt the rape events as presented by the applicant and that there no evidence in the file on the correspondence between Belgian and German authorities that such circumstances were shared. The CALL considered that the applicant, as a victim of sexual violence, can be assumed to be a vulnerable person with special needs, especially where the rape events occurred in an asylum reception center and the contested decision has indications that the applicant was a victim of trafficking in human beings.

As a result, the CALL concluded that Germany is not aware of the situation of vulnerability of the applicant and that there has been no substantive communication on the facts of rape. As such, the Member State responsible cannot take the necessary measures while, because of the seriousness of the facts, a proactive attitude is minimally necessary.

The CALL suspended a Dublin transfer to Germany due to a breach of the principle of due diligence in view of Article 3 ECHR.