Netherlands, Council of State, 27 May 2020, no. 201906353/1/V3. ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:1281

The State Secretary, on the other hand, argued that Article 8(1) Dublin III should be interpreted as stating that, in principle, it is always in the best interest of the unaccompanied minor to be reunited with an (adult) family member. However, this presumption is, on rare occasions, rebuttable. Furthermore, he added that, on the basis of mutual trust, he can assume that the Swedish authorities have fulfilled their obligation to take the interests of minor asylum seekers into account when applying the Dublin Regulation. 

 

The Council of State highlighted Recital 13 Dublin III that refers to Article 24 of the Charter and Article 6(1)(3) and 8(1) Dublin III and underlines that the best interest of the child, when applying Dublin, must always come first. Furthermore, it underlines that Article 8 and Recital 16 Dublin III attach great importance to the possibility of family reunification, but do not justify disregarding additional arguments. Indeed, the Council  asserts that it is up to the State Secretary to gather all relevant facts and circumstances in an individual case and weigh these facts up against the presumption that the best interest of the child requires a reunification with an adult family member.

 

Contrary to the Court of the Hague, the Council of State considers that the State Secretary has not sufficiently motivated why it is in the best interest of the applicant to be reunited with her brother. 

 

Furthermore, the Council considers that the State Secretary may rely on the presumption of mutual trust. However, this does not mean that he can abstain from further investigating the applicant’s claim and leave the ‘best interest’-assessment to the Swedish authorities. Indeed, Dublin III does not impose an obligation on the country that takes charge of an applicant, to investigate the applicant’s considerations when accepting a take-charge request. Moreover, the principle of loyal cooperation, Article 4(3) TEU, requires the Dutch authorities to question the Swedish authorities on the situation of the applicant’s brother. More specifically, the Dutch authorities are required to question the Swedish authorities on the brother’s ability to take care of the applicant (Article 6(3) Dublin III).

 The Council considers the appeal to be well-founded and annuls the Secretary’s decision. Finally, it orders the State Secretary to adopt a new decision, taking into consideration the findings of the Council.