On 15 October 2024, the Dutch Minister of Asylum and Migration declared the applicant’s asylum request inadmissible because he had received international protection in Italy from 2017 until August 2022. The District Court of the Hague, seated in Arnhem, declared an appeal against the Minister’s decision to be unfounded on 17 December 2024. The applicant lodged a further appeal before the Council of State, arguing that he had no income or accommodation in Italy and that the medical care for his psychological issues had been inadequate. He also stated that his psychological condition would deteriorate further if he returned to Italy, as he would be separated from his family who were residing in the Netherlands.

At the Minister’s request, the Medical Advice Bureau (BMA) issued a medical opinion on 3 September 2024. The report confirmed that the applicant suffered from psychological issues and had attempted suicide multiple times. The BMA warned that without treatment, his condition could worsen, potentially leading to a life-threatening situation within 3 to 6 months.

The applicant contested the district court’s decision, arguing that the court had failed to recognize his particular vulnerability within the meaning of the CJEU judgment of Bashar Ibrahim (C‑297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim, Fadwa Ibrahim, Bushra Ibrahim, Mohammad Ibrahim, Ahmad Ibrahim (C‑318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov (Joined Cases C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, 19 March 2019). He claimed that due to the severity of his psychological condition, he would experience extreme material deprivation in Italy and that the transfer would lead to a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

The council upheld the applicant’s appeal, ruling that the district court had indeed overlooked the medical document highlighting the applicant’s psychological conditions, which confirmed his  particular vulnerability. Additionally, the council found that status holders in Italy faced significant difficulties, including the loss of entitlement to reception and other basic needs after 6 months. Furthermore, it considered that access to social housing, income support, and medical care in Italy is dependent on a lengthy period of residence, thus potentially precluding the applicant from receiving medical care in the short term, which the BMA identified as necessary to prevent a medical emergency.

Based on the applicant’s medical situation and considering the Ibrahim judgment, the council determined that the Minister needed to provide further justification as to why the applicant would not suffer extreme material deprivation in Italy. The appeal was declared well-founded, and the Minister was instructed to make a new decision, taking into account additional medical evidence showing that the applicant had attempted suicide again in January 2025.