The applicant, a Syrian national, requested international protection in Luxembourg on 29 January 2024, after previously lodging applications in Bulgaria and Germany. During his interview, he admitted that he had fled military conscription in Syria and that he had been granted protection in Bulgaria. In August 2024, the applicant's lawyer had revealed that Bulgaria had revoked his humanitarian protection. Despite this, Luxembourg rejected his application as inadmissible, and a transfer request was sent to Bulgaria on 12 December 2024, which was upheld by the Administrative Tribunal on 22 January 2025. Subsequently, the authorities ordered the applicant's house arrest until the transfer was carried out. However, multiple transfer attempts between April and May 2025 were impeded by the applicant's repeated disappearances, preventing his removal. Consequently, by order of 27 May 2025, the Minister ordered that the applicant be placed in the Detention Centre for a maximum of three months.

On 16 June 2025, the applicant appealed this decision before the Administrative Tribunal, requesting its annulment. In his appeal, the applicant challenged both the lawfulness and the merits of the detention decision, arguing in particular (i) that there was no risk of absconding, (ii) that his transfer to Bulgaria could not be carried out, since the ministerial authorities failed to inform the Bulgarian authorities of his health problems (reactive depressive mood, anxiety, stress-induced psoriasis, persistent depressive symptoms, suicidal ideas and one suicide attempt) and (iii) that, in any event, the detention measure against him would be incompatible with his state of health, with his right to private and family life and with the best interests of his minor sisters.

First, the tribunal noted that the applicant's transfer to Bulgaria had been upheld by the Administrative Tribunal on 22 January 2025, giving it res judicata effect. Since the appeal concerned only the separate detention decision, the tribunal considered that any arguments challenging the transfer itself should be rejected as irrelevant. This included claims about the impact of the transfer on the applicant's health and assertions that the Minister should have applied Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation.

Second, regarding the merits of the detention decision, the tribunal referred to Article 22 of the Law of 18 December 2015, which allows administrative detention for up to 3 months to ensure the transfer. However, there must be a significant risk of absconding, the detention must be proportionate, and less coercive means must be found ineffective. In this case, the applicant, placed under house arrest, failed to appear at the house on dates when transfers to Bulgaria were scheduled. The tribunal found that these absences indicated an intention to avoid removal, justifying the presumption of a risk of absconding. While the applicant attributed his disappearances to mental health issues and panic attacks triggered by the transfer, the tribunal did not accept these circumstances as legitimate grounds, concluding instead that they reinforced the intention not to comply, validating the Minister's decision to detain him.

Third, as for the applicant's claim that his detention was incompatible with his health and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment due to the isolation it involved, the tribunal found no evidence in the file to support this. While medical reports confirmed that the applicant suffered from reactive depressive mood, stress-induced psoriasis, and persistent depressive symptoms, they attributed these to the psychological impact of his transfer to Bulgaria, not to the detention itself. The medical documents also did not demonstrate that the detention measure has worsened his mental health.

Fourth, regarding the applicant's claim that his detention infringed his right to respect for private and family life, the tribunal found that while family life can extend beyond the nuclear family, the applicant had to show dependence beyond normal emotional ties. He claimed separation from his parents and siblings, including minors, and that they had been prevented from visiting him. However, under the Law of 28 May 2009, detainees may communicate freely and receive visits unless restricted for security reasons. Any limitations would result from decisions made by the Detention Centre Director, not the Minister, and therefore they were considered by the tribunal to fall outside the scope of the case. Moreover, the tribunal also rejected the applicant's arguments based on the best interests of his minor sisters, noting that, under the principle that no one may plead on behalf of others, the applicant could only rely on harm to his own rights. Since the applicant had not demonstrated how the detention measure alone had interfered with his family life, the tribunal rejected his arguments as unfounded.

Finally, regarding his health, the tribunal emphasised that under Article 31(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, Luxembourg was required to inform Bulgaria of the applicant's health within a reasonable time prior to the transfer. This would ensure that the applicant received adequate medical assistance and continuity of protection. Although the applicant clearly fell within the scope of this provision due to his mental health condition and risk of serious deterioration, none of the transfer forms sent in April and June 2025 included his health information. The tribunal noted that the State party neither contested this omission nor offered justification, despite having been made aware of his condition through multiple medical documents and family notifications. Due to this failure to inform the Bulgarian authorities of the applicant's health, the tribunal found a lack of due diligence by Luxembourg.

As the transfer could not lawfully proceed without communication of medical information, the tribunal held the applicant's action to be well founded, without needing to assess the duration of detention or alternative measures. It therefore ordered the immediate release of the applicant from detention.