The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a decision assigning Slovakia responsibility for examining an anonymised applicant’s asylum claim. The court held that the evidence did not justify preventing his transfer under the Dublin II Regulation.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as J.M.O., arrived in Ireland in May 2007 and applied for asylum that August. He had earlier applied for asylum in Slovakia. Slovak authorities accepted Ireland’s request to take him back, and a transfer order was made in September 2007.
He argued that transfer risked his return to Russia, where he said he feared persecution, and that Slovakia would not properly assess his claim. His submissions also raised his mental and physical health, his claimed reliance on a nephew living in Ireland, and the risk of refoulement. The Commissioner considered the submissions and decided Slovakia remained responsible. The applicant’s challenge to an earlier transfer order was settled in 2008, after which he made a further request for Ireland to examine his claim. The Commissioner again decided that Slovakia was responsible.
The court said judicial review was not an appeal on the weight of the evidence. It considered whether the decision was unlawful, irrational, unreasonable or disproportionate. It found that the Commissioner had examined the material about Slovakia, including the statistics and reports submitted, and had made further inquiries about concerns raised at European level. The court concluded that the evidence fell well short of showing systemic deficiencies or a real risk that the applicant would be refouled or subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court distinguished the evidence in this case from the extensive material about conditions and asylum procedures in Greece considered in other cases. It also found no adequate evidence that the applicant was dependent on his nephew or that family ties existed in the country of origin, as required for the humanitarian provisions relied upon. The court was satisfied that the Commissioner had considered the applicant’s medical condition and had not acted irrationally in deciding the transfer could proceed.
The judgment rejected the applicant’s grounds, including his claims about the Commissioner’s discretion, the assessment of risk and family circumstances, and fair procedures. It dismissed the judicial review application. The order did not determine the merits of the applicant’s asylum claim; responsibility for examining that claim remained with Slovakia.