The High Court has refused a Nigerian mother and her children’s judicial review challenge concerning their proposed transfer to the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation.
In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2020, Ms Justice Tara Burns held that the United Kingdom’s planned withdrawal from the European Union did not suspend EU law during the transition period. The Dublin III Regulation therefore continued to apply to transfers to the UK, unless the Minister for Justice exercised discretion under Article 17 not to transfer the family.
The family had sought international protection in Ireland in April 2017. The mother told authorities that Ireland was her primary destination and that she had not sought protection elsewhere. The UK later confirmed that she had held visitor visas, including one valid from 18 February to 18 August 2017, and accepted responsibility for the family’s claims under the Dublin rules in May 2018. The International Protection Office issued a transfer decision in July 2018, which the International Protection Appeals Tribunal affirmed in November 2020.
The applicants asked the High Court to require a decision on their Article 17 request and to declare that uncertainty about that decision breached their rights. They also argued that the approaching end of EU law’s application in the UK made a transfer unlawful. The Minister had indicated during the proceedings that she would decide the Article 17 request by 16 December 2020. The judge said the first two requests no longer required determination.
On the UK law issue, the judge relied on a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that EU law remained in force in the UK until its actual withdrawal. She said the Dublin III Regulation remained operative there until the end of the transition period, and that transfers had to continue under it unless the Minister exercised Article 17 discretion against transfer.
The court also rejected the argument that the UK’s Internal Market Bill showed systemic flaws in its asylum procedures or reception conditions. The judge said the bill was not law and did not establish such flaws. Other pleaded grounds were not considered because they did not correspond to the relief sought or involved matters for the Minister or a tribunal. A separate argument about a possible transfer after an invalid Article 17 decision was premature while no indication to transfer had arisen.
The judge refused the applicants the relief sought. The judgment did not determine the pending Article 17 request; the Minister had indicated that she would decide it by 16 December.