The High Court lifted an automatic stay on a decision to transfer an anonymised applicant to the United Kingdom, and ruled that the stay provision in a High Court practice direction would no longer apply to future judicial review applications concerning Dublin III decisions.
The decision, made by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 25 November 2020, concerned an ongoing judicial review. The applicant is seeking to quash a 10 June 2020 decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal that the United Kingdom was responsible for examining the applicant’s international protection claim. The substantive case was listed for a telescoped hearing on 27 November.
The stay had arisen automatically under paragraph 8(2) of High Court Practice Direction 81 when the judicial review papers were filed. The provision applied to Dublin system decisions and kept them stayed through the proceedings, including any appeal, unless the court ordered otherwise. The judgment said about 270 cases on a holding list had the benefit of the global order.
The respondents sought to end the practice on a lead-case basis. They argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in NVU v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had settled the issue of the Minister’s discretion under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, and that the Minister had decided to allow applicants on the holding list to pursue their protection claims in Ireland. They submitted that the automatic stay was no longer needed and ran contrary to the Regulation’s aim of speedy processing.
The court accepted that European Union law did not require the global stay. It noted that the 2018 regulations already provide an appeal against a transfer decision and a right to remain in the State while the appeal is determined. Citing a Court of Justice of the European Union judgment, the court also said the Dublin III system’s goal of rapid processing discourages multiple remedies. The judgment recognised that courts may regulate their own procedures, but concluded the automatic stay was no longer necessary after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The order was limited: the court lifted the automatic stay on this applicant’s transfer decision and disapplied paragraph 8(2) for future applications seeking judicial review of Dublin III decisions. It did not decide the substantive challenge to the transfer decision. The court said it would hear from the respondents about whether they proposed to defer implementation until after judgment in the substantive case.