A., an Eritrean national known under different aliases, applied for international protection in Luxembourg on 21 August 2025. On the same day, he was interviewed by the judicial police and he stated that he had entered the European Union via Romania using a falsified Sudanese passport and a visa obtained with the assistance of smugglers. Following an interview conducted to determine the Member State responsible under the Dublin III Regulation, the Luxembourg authorities submitted a take-charge request to Romania on 3 September 2025, which was accepted. By decision of 10 October 2025, the Minister of Home Affairs decided not to examine the application for international protection and ordered the applicant’s transfer to Romania pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Dublin III Regulation and Article 28(1) of the Law of 18 December 2015 on international protection.

The applicant brought an action before the Administrative Tribunal contesting the transfer decision. He argued that Romania could not be considered the responsible Member State because his visa had been issued on the basis of a false identity and he had never personally applied for it nor sought asylum in Romania. He also claimed that his transfer would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the EU Charter). He referred to reports by international organisations (notably AIDA and Amnesty International) allegedly demonstrating serious shortcomings in the Romanian asylum system, including inadequate reception conditions and discrimination. He further contended that the Minister had failed to carry out an individualised assessment of his situation, and should have applied the discretionary clause under Article 17(1) Dublin III.

The tribunal first rejected the applicant’s procedural complaints, finding that the minister had sufficiently examined and motivated the decision, including the applicant’s health situation and migration route. On the issue of responsibility, the tribunal held that Article 12(1) of the Dublin III Regulation applies where a Member State has issued a valid residence permit, irrespective of whether the applicant personally applied for it or sought asylum in that State. As the existence and validity of the Romanian residence document were undisputed, Romania was correctly designated as the responsible State.

The tribunal then examined the alleged risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, relying extensively on CJEU case-law in N.S. and others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (United Kingdom) (21 December 2011), C.K. and Others v Republic of Slovenia (Republika Slovenija) (16 February 2017) and Abubacarr Jawo v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (19/03/2019); and ECtHR case-law in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (21 January 2011) and Tarakhel v Switzerland (4 November 2014). It recalled that only systemic deficiencies reaching a particularly high threshold of severity—resulting in a situation of extreme material deprivation—could bar a Dublin transfer. It found that the applicant had failed to substantiate such deficiencies in Romania, noting that the reports relied upon were either not produced or not cited with sufficient specificity, and that there was no general suspension of transfers to Romania ruled by courts or requested by UNHCR.

The tribunal further held that the applicant had not demonstrated any individualised risk linked to his personal circumstances, nor that he would be denied access to asylum procedures or basic assistance upon transfer. Finally, it confirmed that Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation confers a discretionary power on the authorities, and that the minister had not exceeded or misused that discretion by declining to assume responsibility.

In conclusion, the Administrative Tribunal held that the applicant had not established either systemic deficiencies in Romania’s asylum system or individual circumstances capable of giving rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the EU Charter. It further held that the designation of Romania as the responsible Member State under Article 12(1) of the Dublin III Regulation was lawful and that there was no obligation on the Minister to apply the discretionary clause. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the action for reformation in its entirety, upheld the decision ordering the applicant’s transfer to Romania, and confirmed that Luxembourg was not required to examine the asylum application on its merits.