The applicant is a Syrian national who, prior to arrival in the Netherlands, had attempted three times to enter Poland but he had been sent back to Belarus each time. On his fourth attempt, he managed to enter Poland and to apply for asylum. By decision of 20 April 2022, his application for asylum in the Netherlands was not examined, as the Minister for Asylum and Migration ruled that Poland is the responsible Member State in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant appealed this decision as he feared that a transfer to Poland would lead to a pushback to Belarus without the possibility to apply for international protection in Poland.

The Court of the Hague upheld the appeal on 27 March 2024 and annulled the decision of the Minister. The court interpreted the CJEU ruling in X v State Secretary for Justice and Security (C-392/22), noting that when assessing the risk of treatment violating Article 4 of the EU Charter in another Member State, the Minister must assess the credibility of the applicant's claims about their experiences. Additionally, the Minister must independently investigate possible structural deficiencies in the asylum process and reception conditions, especially if there is evidence of systematic violations, such as those by Polish border authorities. The court found that the Minister failed to clearly address whether these systemic issues posed a serious risk of inhuman treatment. While the Minister did review public information on violations upon appeal, the court deemed the decision of April 2022 to be inadequately prepared and ruled that the legal effects should not be upheld.

The Minister appealed this decision before the Council of State. The council clarified that, under the EU law, the Minister can rely on the presumption that other Member States comply with international obligations, but this presumption is rebuttable. The council stated that it is up to the applicant to provide evidence of systemic deficiencies in the asylum process of the responsible Member State, noting in this regard the importance of the Dublin personal interview as an opportunity for this. The council emphasized that if such deficiencies are demonstrated, the Minister must address them with objective information and cannot disregard the foreign national's claims. When the Minister fails to make it plausible that the principle of mutual trust cannot be relied upon and does not wish to retain the asylum application for processing, the council stated that the Minister must carry out a further investigation in the requested Member State, in accordance with the ECtHR judgment M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (30696/09).

The Minister's first complaint argued that the lower court incorrectly ruled that its decision of 20 April 2022 lacked proper reasoning. The council upheld the District Court's decision, explaining that although the Minister checked the situation in Member States based on available country information, he failed to properly assess the applicant's statements about systemic issues in Poland, including pushbacks to Belarus. The council clarified that a credibility assessment of the foreign national's statements was not required, as wrongly asserted by the District Court. The council elaborated that in the Dublin procedure, the most relevant is whether the applicant has made it plausible that systemic errors exist. Thus, the council ruled that the Minister should have taken account the applicant's statements in light of the general information.

The Minister's second complaint argued that, after annulling the decision from 20 April 2022, the District Court wrongly failed to maintain its legal effects. The council agreed with this complaint. According to the council, established case law permits the legal effects of an annulled decision to be upheld if the administrative body provides sufficient justification after a proper investigation. In this case, the council noted that the Minister defended its position on appeal, citing recent reports on applicants transferred to Poland under the Dublin procedure and Poland's asylum procedures including a report by the EUAA entitled ‘Information on procedural elements and rights of applicants subject to a Dublin transfer to Poland” published on 30 May 2023. These reports indicated that asylum seekers in Poland were entitled to procedural protections, including suspensive effect for appeals, and the right to reception facilities during subsequent asylum applications. The Minister thus maintained that there were no structural deficiencies in Poland's system that would violate Article 4 of the EU Charter upon transfer. The council concluded that the Minister's arguments and investigation were sufficient. As a result, the council found that the annulled decision can withstand judicial review and upheld its legal effects, contrary to the District Court's ruling.

On the basis of the information cited by the applicant and the Minister on appeal, the council concluded that the principle of mutual trust may be relied upon with respect to Dublin transfers to Poland.