The Court of Appeal has dismissed an anonymised applicant’s appeal against the refusal to quash the Minister for Justice’s decision not to examine her international protection application in Ireland under Article 17(1) of the EU Dublin III Regulation. It also dismissed as moot her appeal concerning an interim injunction against her transfer to Belgium. The court did not decide whether Article 27 of Dublin III requires a challenge to an Article 17 refusal to be heard as part of an appeal against a transfer decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as Ms K, is a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She arrived in Ireland in October 2018 after travelling from South Africa to Brussels on a Belgian visa. Belgium accepted Ireland’s request to take charge of her application, and in January 2019 the International Protection Office (IPO) decided to transfer her there. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) upheld that decision in July 2021. The applicant did not challenge IPAT’s ruling, so the legality of the transfer decision and Belgium’s responsibility were not in dispute in this appeal.
In September 2021, the applicant asked the Minister to use Article 17(1) to have Ireland examine her claim. She raised concerns about possible detention and treatment in Belgium, her ties and time in Ireland, and Covid-19 risks. The Minister refused, saying the submissions did not establish humanitarian or compassionate grounds to invoke the clause. The decision referred to the absence of evidence of systemic deficiencies or a real risk to her rights, and considered her education, community connections and precarious immigration status.
The High Court refused her application for judicial review and an interlocutory injunction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no demonstrated error in the Minister’s assessment. It held that the material about detention and reception conditions did not substantiate the applicant’s concerns; the Covid submissions were generic and showed no particular or increased risk to her. It also found the Minister had considered her ties to Ireland and was entitled to conclude that transfer would not disproportionately interfere with her private-life rights.
The court dismissed the appeal against refusal of judicial review. It separately dismissed the injunction appeal as moot: the applicant had already had the judicial review and appeal heard before any transfer, and deciding the injunction issue could have no practical effect. The court noted that the relationship between Article 17 decisions and Article 27 remedies was not clear enough to resolve without guidance from the Court of Justice of the EU, but no reference was necessary in this case. The court ordered that the injunction it had granted at the end of the appeal be discharged. The judgment also noted that costs issues remained to be addressed.