The High Court has refused an injunction and a stay that would have prevented the transfer of a Georgian man to France while he challenges the transfer decision by judicial review. The ruling concerned only interim relief; it did not decide the substantive judicial review challenge.
Ms Justice Hyland held that a stay would not stop the six-month period under the Dublin III Regulation running from the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s (IPAT) decision on 20 September 2023. If the man is not transferred by the applicable deadline in February 2024, France would be relieved of its obligation to take him back and responsibility would pass to Ireland, subject to exceptions not relevant in this case.
The judge said Ireland’s designated appeal under the Regulation is to the IPAT. A further challenge by judicial review, or a domestic court’s stay during that challenge, does not change the date from which the six-month period runs. She noted that if the man is transferred and the decision is later overturned, the Regulation provides for him to be returned to Ireland.
The man applied for international protection in Ireland in September 2022. France agreed to take him back after Ireland’s request, on the basis that his earlier protection application there had been rejected. The International Protection Office issued a transfer decision in February 2023, and the IPAT dismissed his appeal in September. He was granted leave to bring judicial review proceedings in October 2023.
In support of interim relief, his lawyers relied on allegations that he had been detained and beaten in France, a reported break-in at his hostel, and medical evidence from Dr Giller. Her report said the evidence was consistent with torture in Georgia and re-traumatisation in France, and assessed him as at serious or high risk of suicide if returned. The man also argued that transfer could expose him to refoulement and that his medical needs might not be met.
The judge said the Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent ruling in the joined CZA cases meant refoulement concerns could not ground the challenge absent evidence of systemic deficiencies in France’s asylum procedure or reception conditions. She also found that the evidence before her did not establish a likely risk of inhuman or degrading treatment linked to significant and permanent deterioration in his health. She noted that the report did not say he was then displaying severe suicidal ideation or that French services could not address the risk described.
Weighing those concerns against the likely loss of the opportunity to transfer him under Dublin III if an injunction delayed the case past the deadline, the judge refused both the injunction and the stay. The underlying judicial review remained to be determined.