A Sudanese national applied for international protection in France (19 December 2016) and in Malta (20 August 2019), before applying in Switzerland (21 March 2025). On 8 April 2025, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) declared the application inadmissible and ordered the applicant's transfer to Malta, which accepted his take back, under the Dublin procedure.

The applicant filed an appeal before the Federal Administrative Court seeking the suspensive effect of the decision and its annulment. In the alternative, he requested to obtain guarantees from the Maltese authorities about his reception conditions. He also claimed that his state of health (particularly his mental distress and sleep disorder) justified the exemption from the transfer and the application of the discretionary clauses provided by Article 17(1) of Dublin III Regulation.

On 17 April 2025, the Federal Administrative Court considered the appeal admissible and ordered the provisional suspension of the transfer to Malta. By judgment of 28 April 2025, the court ruled that Malta remained responsible for examining the application, finding no systemic deficiencies or exceptional vulnerabilities that would justify applying the sovereignty clause.

First, the court analysed which Member State was responsible for the examination of the application and established that Malta was competent to take back the applicant, according to Article 18(1)(d) of Dublin III Regulation and based on Malta's acceptance to take back the applicant.

Second, regarding the alleged deficiencies the court held that Malta is an EU Member State bound by the EU charter, the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, thus it could be presumed that it respected the rights of asylum applicants, in particular their right to have their applications processed in a fair and equitable procedure. However, it also noted that this presumption was rebuttable in case there are serious indications of systematical breaches of EU minimum standards, or of non-compliance with international law.

Third, the court held that the shortcomings in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Malta did not necessarily result in a risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, but that it was necessary to examine in the individual case. In that regard, it referred to a factsheet published by EUAA based on information provided by the International Protection Agency of Malta (IPAM), specifically on procedural elements and rights of applicants subject to a Dublin transfer to Malta and where the IPAM stressed that applicants enjoy ‘free access to national mainstream health care'. Consequently, the court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that there were systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Malta. 

Finally, the court concluded that the sovereignty clause under (Article 17(.1) of the Dublin III) Regulation could not be applied because the applicant did not belong, and did not claim to belong, to any category characterised by particular vulnerability (child, unaccompanied minor, pregnant woman or other...). It argued that the applicant was a young man, who had previously lived in Malta for 6 years without facing health problems, and whose pharmacological treatments could be continued there.  

For those reasons, the appeal was dismissed.