Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid)
NL: The Court of the Hague rejects claim that Dublin transfer to Poland would infringe Article 3 of ECHR
The applicant’s request for a temporary residence permit was rejected since another Member State was responsible to examine the international protection application under the Dublin III Regulation. The Netherlands made a takeover request to Poland, who accepted it. The applicant contested the transfer and invoked the interstate principle of legitimate expectations. The applicant further claimed irregularities in the asylum procedure and in the reception system in Poland, that would allegedly infringe Article 3 of the ECHR.
The Court of the Hague dismissed the applicant's claims and assessed that the applicant did not prove that Poland would not assess his asylum application in accordance with its international obligations. The court notes that an AIDA report of March 2020 mentions a lack of free legal aid in Poland, but this is not contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. Moreover, in the likelihood of an infringement during the procedure in Poland, the applicant can complain before the national authorities and before the ECtHR.
The applicant further complained that his individual circumstances (homosexual orientation) would worsen his personal situation in case of transfer to Poland and that the Netherlands should make use of Article 17 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation. The court concluded that the applicant stayed only 2 days in Poland and no statements of any problems encountered were made, thus no circumstances were substantiated to justify the application of Article 17 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation by the Netherlands.
Assessment of Application; Dublin procedure; Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ;
Netherlands, Court of The Hague [Rechtbank Den Haag], Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), NL20.14431, NL:RBDHA:2020:11096 , 04 November 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.