The applicant is a national of Somalia. On 18 April 2024, the State Secretary for Justice and Security issued a decision that it would not assess the applicant's asylum application as in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, Cyprus was identified as the responsible Member State. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the District Court of the Hague, seated in Middelburg.

The applicant argued that the principle of mutual trust could no longer be relied on in respect of Cyprus as a result of systemic structural weaknesses in the asylum procedure and reception conditions.

In its consideration of the case, the district court referred to a previous ruling of the Council of State on 9 February 2021, where it declared on the basis of available information at that time, that the principle of mutual trust could be relied upon in respect of Cyprus. However, the court noted that the judgments and reports submitted by the applicant to support his appeal demonstrate sufficiently that Cyprus is not complying with its obligations in a sufficient manner. In this regard, the court referred to the AIDA reports of April 2022 and May 2024, and stated that these reports evidence a deteriorating situation in Cyprus compared to the council's previous ruling. The district court noted the major shortage of reception places, the lack of structural capacity, the targeted approach of providing shelter mainly to women and families, as well as the substandard living conditions of reception centres. The court thus ruled that the applicant has made it sufficiently plausible that, after a transfer to Cyprus, he will not be provided with regular reception that meets the minimum requirements.

Furthermore, the court stated that no improvements or insufficient improvements are to be expected in the regular reception conditions, and that possibility of an arrangement in private accommodation is limited due to high market competition, rising costs of rent and limited financial contributions from the government. In addition, the court noted that the applicant cannot be expected to first complain to the Cypriot authorities about the lack of reception due to the existing defects.

In light of the above, the court considered that the State Secretary did not sufficiently and carefully prepare and reason the contested decision. It ordered a new decision to be issued taking into account the considerations of the court's judgment.