The High Court has refused a Georgian applicant’s challenge to his transfer from Ireland to France under the EU’s Dublin III Regulation, finding that the Minister’s decision and the transfer process were lawful.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered the judgment on 20 September 2024. The case was a judicial review of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision to uphold the transfer, the Minister’s refusal to take responsibility for the protection application under Article 17, and the exchange of information before the transfer. The applicant had already been transferred to France on 13 February 2024.
The applicant argued that his circumstances had changed since an earlier High Court refusal of an injunction in December 2023. A medical report dated 30 January 2024 said he had developed suicidal thoughts at the prospect of returning to France and that he faced a high risk of suicide if sent there or to Georgia. He also argued that Ireland had failed to send required health information to France and that the Article 17 decision was invalid because it had been signed by an official rather than the Minister personally.
The judge found that the Minister had considered the medical reports and the applicant’s circumstances. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish a real and proven risk that transfer would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment linked to a significant and permanent deterioration in his health. The Minister’s decision addressed healthcare, accommodation and reception conditions in France, as well as private-life rights. The court found no significant error in that decision.
On the information exchange, the judgment records that Ireland sent France a standard transfer-data form and a common health certificate. The certificate identified a psychiatric condition and suicidal tendency, based on information from medical staff. It recorded no specific medication or treatment and stated that no medical assistance was required during transfer or on arrival. The judge accepted that the applicant’s solicitors’ pre-action letter could be treated as consent to transmit the health information. The court found no basis to set aside the certificate or the transfer-data process.
The judge also rejected the challenge to the official’s authority. Applying the Carltona principle, he held that the official acted under the Minister’s authority and that the Article 17 decision was, in law, the Minister’s decision.
The court refused all relief sought in the judicial review, including an order requiring the State to accept the applicant back. It found that he had not been transferred erroneously, as required for that relief under Article 29(3). The judgment did not decide costs: the matter was listed for mention on 23 October 2024, with provision for written submissions on costs and related matters.