The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Minister for Justice, the Refugee Applications Commissioner and a member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal over a Cameroonian man’s asylum application, affirming an order quashing the Commissioner’s and Tribunal’s decisions concerning his proposed transfer to Germany.
The Court held that the domestic rules did not empower the Commissioner to transfer the application to Germany for examination because German authorities had already examined and rejected the man’s asylum applications. In those circumstances, the Commissioner was required to proceed with his Irish application on its merits.
The man, identified in the judgment only as D.Y., had left Cameroon in 1998 and sought asylum in Germany. His applications there were refused. He arrived in Ireland on 3 November 2000 and applied for refugee status three days later, stating that his German applications had been unsuccessful.
The Commissioner decided that Germany should examine the Irish application under the Dublin Convention, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upheld that decision on 26 June 2001. Germany had agreed to accept the man. The High Court later granted certiorari against the Commissioner’s and Tribunal’s decisions and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal to be decided according to law. The State parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court explained that the Dublin Convention distinguishes between transferring an application for examination and taking back a person whose application in the responsible state has already been rejected. It said the Irish implementation order allowed transfers under certain Convention provisions, but those provisions did not apply to D.Y.’s situation. Although Germany was the state responsible under the Convention’s criteria, it had already completed its examination, so there was no application left to transfer there for examination.
The Court said Ireland could give domestic effect to obligations imposed on Ireland by the Convention, but could not legislate for obligations imposed on other member states. The order provided for Ireland’s own relevant obligation if the roles were reversed, but contained no provision authorising the Commissioner to arrange D.Y.’s removal to Germany in this case.
The High Court had granted certiorari, though the Supreme Court said its reasoning differed from the High Court’s. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order. It did not decide D.Y.’s asylum claim on its merits; its judgment required the Irish statutory process to determine that application to proceed.