The case concerned an appeal submitted by a stateless person from Palestine, against a decision to transfer him under the Dublin procedure to Finland. On the risk of direct refoulement, the District Court of the Hague seated in Arnhem stated that there was no reason not to apply the inter-state principle of mutual trust. The court noted that the applicant did not substantiate on the alleged shortcomings in the asylum procedure in Finland and on his own previous experience.

On the risk of indirect refoulement, the applicant alleged that there is a difference in the protection policy between Finland and the Netherlands and that he risks being subject to indirect refoulement because he is of Palestinian origins and if returned to Jordan, he risks being subject to treatment contrary to the Article 3 of the ECHR because he is Palestinian and there is war in the area around Jordan. The court considered that the applicant should have substantiated the claim and adduce evidence with regard to the alleged difference in protection policy. The applicant only submitted a document in Finnish, with no translation and did not prove his claim.

On the request for application of the discretionary clause by Finland under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation, the applicant claimed a co-dependency relationship with his partner due to physical conditions, precisely the applicant has a tumour and the partner has paralysis, and they support each other with medication. The court confirmed the reasoning of the State Secretary according to which the applicant failed to prove any special circumstances. The court noted that the applicant did not submit any marriage certificate, that they did not form a lasting relationship in the country of origin and cannot justify a family and co-dependence relationship. The applicant stated that his partner lived in the Netherlands for 10 years and has adult children in the Netherlands, thus the co-dependency was not proved. The mere fact of the partner residence in the Netherlands was deemed insufficient to decide to process the asylum application in the Netherlands based on Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation.

The appeal was rejected as unfounded.