The main appeal argument relates only to the fact that the deportation of the Bf to Greece for a detailed reason would constitute a violation of Art. 3 MRK and is therefore inadmissible. It should be noted that the expulsion of asylum seekers, which is linked to a rejection of the application for international protection, is always considered to constitute admissibility of refoulement, deportation or deportation to the State concerned under Paragraph 10 (4) of the AsylG 2005 the asylum authorities have already been legally adjudicated on this issue. However, the detention pending authority is bound by a legally binding or enforceable termination measure (see E 20 December 2007, 2004/21/0319). This also applies to a (related) determination of the admissibility of deportation to the state concerned; in any case, insofar as there has been no change in the situation since then and for the detention authorities it must be obvious what is not the case here.
Within the framework of the assessment of the asylum seeker's protection needs, the question of whether there is a safe route to the place of residence or other safe place in the home country can also be raised. This examination must be made taking into account the applicant's individual circumstances as well as current and relevant country information.
Dublin Romania. Asylum applications from two brothers, one of whom is a minor. Article 8, first paragraph, of the Dublin Regulation does not apply. Stop lawfully.
In the opinion of the court, 'legal cessation' within the meaning of Article 8 (1) of the Dublin Regulation means the situation in which the family member or a brother or sister of the unaccompanied minor has a residence permit or visa. This does not include lawful residence on the basis of an asylum application. The adult brother does not have a residence permit or visa in Romania or in the Netherlands. Article 8 (1) of the Dublin Regulation is therefore not applicable in this case. Article 8, paragraph 4, of the Dublin Regulation does apply. Defendant is instructed to make a new decision. In doing so, the State Secretary will have to assess whether it is in the interests of the minor brother that the Netherlands is responsible for his asylum application. In this decision, the State Secretary must also take into account the behavioral expert report of the remedial educationalist / GZ spychologist and the promise made by the State Secretary at the hearing that in the case the Netherlands should be held responsible for processing the asylum application of the minor brother, the State Secretary also handling the asylum application of the adult brother. A separation of the brothers is therefore not a realistic possibility that should be taken into account when answering the question whether it is in the interests of the minor brother that the Netherlands be responsible for his asylum application. Given the great coherence between the two cases, the appeal of the adult brother is also well founded and the decision concerning the adult brother is also annulled.