A Tajik national first applied for asylum in Poland on 27 April 2022, then in the Netherlands on 23 May 2023. In the Netherlands, his first asylum application was not processed because Poland was deemed responsible. He submitted a subsequent application for international protection in the Netherlands on 15 January 2025, arguing that he was at risk in Tajikistan because he adhered to an Islamic movement and such religious membership is punishable in Tajikistan. The Minister for Asylum and Migration decided on 26 January 2025 not to process his application because Poland was deemed the responsible Member State under the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant appealed before the District Court of the Hague seated in Haarlem against the decision on the Dublin transfer to Poland.

The applicant submitted an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which granted on 26 February 2025 an interim measure ordering the Dutch authorities not to transfer the applicant to Poland until 17 March 2025. The interim measure was extended until 1 April 2025, when the ECtHR lifted it on grounds that the Polish authorities offered answers and guarantees that the applicant would not be expelled as long as he awaited the outcome of his new asylum application or the administrative complaint procedure before the local court. The applicant was transferred to Poland on 3 April 2025 and has been in immigration detention in Poland since then.

The District Court of the Hague seated in Haarlem held a hearing in the case on 8 May 2025, where it was noted that in Poland the applicant was represented by a Polish lawyer and also that a Polish NGO, the Rule of Law Institute intervened in Poland in the case. The court noted that the first asylum application in Poland was rejected by a final decision and the return decision based on the negative asylum decision was confirmed. The applicant complained against the return decision in Poland and after his transfer to Poland he submitted a new asylum application which was pending. Also, the court noted that the Polish Court of Appeal ruled on 18 January 2023 against returning the applicant to Tajikistan, based on a risk for the applicant of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment upon return. In that case, the Polish authorities found systemic human rights violations in Tajikistan, specifically the use of torture, restrictions on freedom of expression and religion, violations of the judicial system, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, along with a ban on international supervision of access to prisons and corruption. The Polish Court of Appeal had reasoned that there was a high concrete risk for the applicant’s rights and freedoms, which it also found to be specific and individual.

Despite the ruling of the Polish court, the Polish authorities attempted to deport the applicant to Tajikistan on 18 January 2023 and on 3 April 2025, less than a day after his actual transfer from the Netherlands to Poland.

The District Court of the Hague first assessed that the applicant had an interest in the appeal despite the fact that he was already transferred to Poland and reiterated that Article 29 of the Dublin III Regulation provides that if a person has been transferred wrongfully or if a transfer decision is annulled on appeal or after the transfer has taken place, the Member State that carried out the transfer must take that person back immediately.

Regarding the claim that the decision was insufficiently reasoned, the court rejected this claim and found that the Minister correctly determined that Poland was the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application and correctly relied upon the principle of mutual trust.

However, in view of the above-mentioned proceedings and rulings in Poland and before the ECtHR, the District Court of the Hague seated in Haarlem found that systemic errors were demonstrated in the asylum procedure conducted in Poland and that the Polish court was unable to protect the applicant against these errors.

The court noted that the applicant demonstrated that the procedure for examining of his asylum application in Poland contained systemic errors that resulted in inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the EU Charter, which consisted of the fact that, despite the judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal, the Polish authorities attempted to deport the applicant twice. Moreover, despite the ongoing complaint procedure against the return decision imposed by the Polish authorities, and despite the recent commitment made before the ECtHR, this has not prevented the Polish authorities from making a second deportation attempt. In view of the fact that Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter have an absolute character, the court held that the principle of interstate trust can no longer be assumed in the case of the applicant and the court relied on Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation to rule that the Netherlands is responsible for processing the applicant’s asylum application. The court allowed the appeal and found that since the applicant was already transferred to Poland, he must be returned from Poland to the Netherlands.