The High Court dismissed two judicial review applications challenging decisions to transfer three asylum applicants from Ireland to the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered judgment on 29 July 2016. He said he would discuss separately with counsel whether the injunctions preventing the transfers should be discharged; the judgment did not itself record a decision on that question.
One case concerned T.M., who arrived in Ireland through the UK in December 2014 and claimed asylum the following day. The Refugee Applications Commissioner decided in May 2015 to transfer him to the UK, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upheld that decision in June. The other case concerned B.S. and R.S., who arrived through the UK in December 2014 and claimed asylum. The Commissioner decided to transfer them in May 2015, and the tribunal upheld those decisions in July.
The applicants argued that the transfers were invalid because Ireland’s requests for information from the UK did not state their grounds as required by the regulation. The judge held that the relevant provisions primarily governed cooperation between member states and did not give applicants a basis to invalidate transfer decisions. He also concluded that the applicants had received an effective remedy through their appeals to the tribunal, which could consider questions of fact and law.
The judgment rejected further arguments about fingerprint information and the timing of the requests to the UK. It said the fingerprint complaint had not been raised before the tribunal and that the regulation did not prevent a state from providing fingerprint information collected outside the Eurodac process. The judge also held that the timing provisions at issue were directed to member states and did not create applicant rights that would invalidate the transfers in these cases.
T.M. argued that his temporary permission to remain while a residence application based on his marriage was considered amounted to a residence document preventing transfer. The judge found it did not. He also rejected T.M.’s argument that the six-month transfer period had expired, holding that time spent in judicial review proceedings with suspensive effect did not count against that period.
The judge said the applicants had made significant false statements or omissions in their asylum applications. He concluded that they were not entitled to relief on the merits and, alternatively, would refuse relief as a matter of discretion because of their conduct. The applications were dismissed. The court’s separate decision on the injunctions remained to be addressed with counsel.