A Syrian national requested international protection in Poland on 9 November 2021 and he subsequently entered the Netherlands on 21 November 2021 where he lodged another application the following day. On 20 January 2022, the Netherlands requested Poland to take back the applicant pursuant to Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation and Poland accepted. By decision of 20 April 2022, the Dutch State Secretary declined to consider the application lodged in the Netherlands, on the ground that Poland was responsible for examining the application, and rejected the arguments raised by the applicant against the transfer. The applicant challenged the decision before the court of the Hague seated in Hertogenbosch, arguing that the Polish authorities infringed his fundamental rights and that he was afraid that his rights would be infringed again if he were transferred to Poland. He claimed that he was allegedly subjected to pushbacks to Belarus on three occasions after entering Polish territory and after he managed to enter the Polish territory with two family members, he stayed in the woods in unbearable living conditions, before being picked up and handed over to border guards. The applicant also argued that he was fingerprinted under threat of refoulement to Belarus and without an interpreter, unaware that this amounted to making an application for international protection. The applicant also added that he was subsequently held in detention for one week in the border guard centre, without food and medical checks. The applicant also added that the Polish courts were not independent. The court suspended the case and referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling with the following questions:

"(1) Should the [Dublin III] Regulation, in view of recitals 3, 32 and 39 thereof, and read in conjunction with Articles 1, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted and applied in such a way that the principle of inter-State trust is not divisible, so that serious and systematic infringements of EU law committed by the potentially responsible Member State, before transfer, with respect to third-country nationals who are not (yet) Dublin returnees absolutely preclude transfer to that Member State?

(2) If the answer to the [first] question is in the negative, should Article 3(2) of the [Dublin III] Regulation, read in conjunction with Articles 1, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that, if the Member State potentially responsible infringes EU law in a serious and systematic way, the transferring Member State cannot, within the framework of [that regulation], rely blindly on the principle of inter-State trust but must eliminate all doubts or must demonstrate that, after the transfer, the applicant will not be placed in a situation which is contrary to Article 4 of the [Charter]?

(3) What evidence can the applicant use in support of his arguments that Article 3(2) of the [Dublin III] Regulation precludes his transfer, and what standard of proof should be applied? In the light of the references to the Union acquis in the recitals of [that regulation], does the transferring Member State have a duty of cooperation or verification, or, in the event of serious and systematic infringements of fundamental rights with respect to third-country nationals, is it necessary to obtain individual guarantees from the Member State responsible that the applicant’s fundamental rights will (indeed) be respected after the transfer? Is the answer to this question different if the applicant lacks evidence in so far as he is unable to support his consistent and detailed statements with documents, when he cannot be expected to do so, given the nature of the statements?

(4) Is the answer to [the third question] different if the applicant demonstrates that complaining to the authorities and/or recourse to legal remedies in the responsible Member State will not be possible and/or effective?"

The CJEU ruled that the fact that the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application under the Dublin III Regulation has carried out pushbacks of third-country nationals seeking to make applications at its border and has detained them at its border check posts does not in itself preclude the Dublin transfer to that Member State. The court also added that the Dublin transfer must be ruled out if there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would, during or after the transfer, face a real risk of being subjected to such practices, and that those practices are capable of placing the person in a situation of extreme material poverty which would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.

The court also ruled that the Member State which has sought to have an applicant taken back by the Member State responsible and wishes to transfer that applicant to the latter Member State must, before carrying out the transfer:

• consider all the information provided by the applicant, particularly concerning the possible existence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment at the time of or after that transfer
• cooperate in establishing the facts and/or verify the truth of those facts;

The court highlighted that the Member State may seek individual guarantees from the responsible Member State and, if such guarantees are provided and they appear to be credible and sufficient to rule out any real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the Member State may carry out that transfer.