A., a Sierra Leonean national, applied for international protection in Germany, claiming persecution based on his sexual orientation. His application was rejected by the German authorities before he subsequently lodged a request for international protection in Portugal.

Pursuant to Articles 36 to 40 of the Asylum Act, the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo, hereafter the AIMA) rejected the applicant’s case as inadmissible after Germany accepted a take back request. The applicant appealed the decision before the Administrative Court of Lisbon, which upheld the rejection, and then before the South Central Administrative Court (hereinafter the court).

The applicant, who suffered from epilepsy and had undergone stomach surgery while in Germany, argued that he qualified as a vulnerable applicant under Articles 21 and 22 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive and therefore had special procedural needs under Article 31(7)(b) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive. He claimed that this prevented the AIMA from subjecting his case to an accelerated procedure, such as the one applicable to inadmissible claims. He further argued that returning him to Germany, where his asylum application had already been rejected, exposed him to a risk of chain refoulement to Sierra Leone where, due to his sexual orientation, he could face imprisonment and treatment contrary to Articles 4, 19 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, thereby breaching Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention. According to the appeal, by failing to assess these risks, the AIMA disregarded both the safeguard clause in Article 3(2) and the discretionary clause in Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation.

The first instance court, whose reasoning the appellate court reproduced, recalled established case law from the Supreme Administrative Court, including Applicant v National Deputy Director of the Foreigners and Borders Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs (2240/18.7BELSB, 16 January 2020), A. (Sierra Leone) v Director of the Foreigners and Borders Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs (02364/18.0BELSB, 5 November 2020), and Applicant v Immigration and Borders Service (SEF) (01988/20.0BELSB, 19 April 2023). According to it, the safeguard clause in Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation requires establishing systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and/or reception conditions of the receiving State, and that such flaws amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The court then noted that the applicant had not established that he would face such conditions in Germany, where he had in fact received accommodation, food and access to health care.

The court rejected the applicant’s claim concerning vulnerability, reasoning that he had not substantiated how his epilepsy impaired his ability to exercise his rights in the asylum procedure. It likewise dismissed as unsubstantiated the argument that the applicant risked imprisonment in Sierra Leone due to his sexual orientation. The court held that, in the absence of any indication of systemic flaws in the German asylum and/or reception systems, responsibility for examining the request for international protection lay with the German State, which also bore the duty to respect the principle of non-refoulement.

The court concluded that the asylum authority was under no obligation to investigate ex officio (of its own motion) the existence of systemic flaws in the receiving State’s asylum and/or reception systems, nor to assess the risk of refoulement in the absence of relevant indications. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the AIMA’s decision declaring the applicant’s request inadmissible and ordering his transfer to Germany.