Dutch Court Upholds Government's Right to Transfer Asylum Seekers to Sweden Under EU Rules

2026-05-12 asylumprocess

The Hague, 12 May 2026
The Hague District Court rejected appeals from Pakistani asylum seekers on 11 May 2026, ruling that Sweden remains responsible for processing their applications under Dublin Regulation principles. Despite concerns about potential detention upon return and claims regarding children’s welfare, the court maintained that mutual trust between EU member states still applies to Sweden. The ruling demonstrates how Dutch courts continue to enforce EU asylum transfer protocols even when families cite individual hardships and systemic concerns about receiving countries’ treatment of asylum seekers.

Timeline of Dublin Procedure Implementation

The case originated when the Netherlands formally requested Sweden to take back the asylum seekers on 6 November 2025 [2]. Following standard EU protocols under the Dublin Regulation, Sweden had a specified timeframe to respond to this request [GPT]. When Sweden failed to respond within the required period, a tacit agreement was reached on 7 January 2026, effectively confirming Sweden’s responsibility for processing the applications [2]. This procedural timeline culminated in the Minister for Asylum and Migration’s decision on 18 March 2026 not to process the asylum applications, citing Sweden’s established responsibility under EU law [1][2].

Court’s Assessment of Mutual Trust Principle

The Pakistani asylum seekers challenged the ministerial decision by arguing that the principle of mutual trust should no longer apply to Sweden, expressing fears of detention upon their return and referencing an AIDA report as evidence of systemic deficiencies [2]. However, the court firmly rejected these arguments, stating that the minister may generally assume that all EU member states adhere to the principle of mutual trust [2]. The judicial reasoning was further supported by previous rulings from 14 October 2024 and 23 June 2025, where Afdeling 6 had already confirmed Sweden’s compliance with international obligations regarding asylum seekers [2]. The court determined that the AIDA report cited by the plaintiffs did not indicate structural deficiencies in Sweden’s asylum procedure and reception facilities that would reach the high threshold of severity required by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or Article 4 of the Charter [2].

Children’s Welfare and Discretionary Powers

The asylum seekers presented arguments concerning special individual circumstances that they believed warranted the Netherlands considering their asylum applications, particularly citing the well-being of their minor children and one daughter’s ongoing psychological treatment [2]. Under Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation, the minister possesses discretionary power to consider an asylum application even when another member state is responsible [2]. However, the court found that the minister was justified in not applying this discretionary provision, having sufficiently considered the interests of the minor children involved [2]. This ruling demonstrates that whilst children’s welfare remains a significant consideration in asylum cases, it does not automatically override established Dublin Regulation procedures when the receiving state is deemed compliant with EU standards [GPT].

Refoulement Risks and Procedural Limitations

The plaintiffs raised concerns about an unsafe situation in Pakistan and feared serious problems upon return to their country of origin [2]. However, the court clarified the limited scope of Dublin procedures regarding indirect refoulement risks, referencing judgements from 30 November 2023 and 12 June 2024 [2]. These precedents establish that indirect refoulement risks cannot be assessed within a Dublin procedure unless systemic failures in the asylum procedure and reception facilities of the responsible member state are proven [2]. Given that the court maintained the principle of mutual trust still applies to Sweden, it did not investigate the risk of indirect refoulement upon transfer [2]. The court ultimately declared the appeals unfounded, resulting in the plaintiffs being denied compensation for legal costs [2]. Simultaneously, the court processed related requests for interim relief, which were dismissed on 11 May 2026 as they became unnecessary following the main ruling [1][5].

Bronnen

asylum residence permit court ruling