The High Court has found unlawful a tribunal decision refusing a Georgian applicant for international protection access to the labour market, citing irrational reasoning, unfair procedures and a failure to properly transpose the relevant EU directive into Irish law.
Mr Justice Heslin delivered judgment on 9 June 2022 in L.K.’s judicial review of a 3 March 2021 decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). That decision had affirmed a review officer’s refusal of labour market access permission, on the basis that delay in processing L.K.’s protection application was attributable to him.
The court found that the tribunal’s assessment was not supported by the evidence before it. L.K. said he had not been notified of an interview scheduled for September 2019. The evidence showed that officials had emailed accommodation staff with appointment details, but there was no evidence that anyone had actually informed him. After hearing nothing, L.K. asked his social worker to contact the International Protection Office (IPO); he attended an interview arranged for the following day.
The judgment also addressed delays in completing L.K.’s protection questionnaire. His solicitor was appointed in January 2020, and the court accepted that Georgian translation was needed for an effective legal consultation. Meetings arranged for March were cancelled amid the Covid-19 disruption. The IPO granted extensions, including one extending the deadline to 24 August 2020; the questionnaire was submitted the next day and accepted without objection.
The tribunal had concluded that L.K. failed to engage, had done little to improve his situation and had not cooperated with the protection process. But Mr Justice Heslin said it did not adequately address his explanations, the translator cancellations or the reasons for the IPO’s extensions. The court also found that adverse conclusions were reached without giving L.K. a fair opportunity to respond. The tribunal’s separate concern that he had worked without permission was not decided as a ground for refusing the appeal.
The court further held that the Irish regulations used wording allowing delay to be attributed “in part” to an applicant, while Article 15(1) of the EU Reception Conditions Directive says access must be available where delay cannot be attributed to the applicant. The court found a material difference and concluded that the directive had not been properly transposed.
Mr Justice Heslin said L.K. had established the legal grounds for relief. The parties were invited to agree the terms of a draft order within 14 days. The judgment directed that any unresolved issues, including the precise form of order or costs, be addressed through written submissions; it did not state the final order’s terms.