The High Court has refused an applicant permission to bring a judicial review challenging decisions that his international protection claim should be processed in Austria.
In a ruling delivered on 23 May 2025, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan refused leave to challenge both an International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) decision dated 23 January 2025 and a Ministerial decision dated 25 February 2025. The tribunal had affirmed that Austria was responsible for examining the applicant’s claim. The Minister declined to use discretion under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation to have the claim decided in Ireland.
The applicant, identified in the ruling as A.H.H., is a 20-year-old Somali national. He sought protection in Ireland in April 2023, citing threats from Al-Shabaab and his membership of the Madhiban clan. The ruling records earlier protection applications in Austria and Greece. He had objected to transfer, including on grounds relating to his experiences in Austria and his mental health.
The Minister’s February decision followed a request submitted by the applicant’s solicitor with a medical note dated 4 February 2025. The note described suicidal ideation, anxiety and depression. The judge said the Minister’s decision addressed the medical evidence, healthcare access in Austria and the applicant’s private life, and gave reasons for declining to exercise Article 17 discretion.
The applicant argued that both decisions had inadequately assessed the risks to his mental health and humanitarian circumstances. The judge said the tribunal had considered a medico-legal report and that assessing the evidence and its weight was for the tribunal. She also found that the applicant had not shown an arguable basis to challenge the Minister’s assessment on rationality grounds.
The ruling noted gaps in the judicial review papers. Earlier Ministerial decisions referred to as responses to previous Article 17 requests were not exhibited. The judge also noted inconsistencies in the applicant’s submissions about an alleged earlier IPAT decision in May 2024, which was not before the court.
The applicant also sought to argue that the Carltona principle did not permit a departmental official to make an Article 17 decision on the Minister’s behalf. The judge said that argument had been rejected in an earlier High Court ruling and saw little or no prospect of success. She did not decide whether to grant leave on that ground because she refused leave on all grounds.
As leave was refused, the application for an injunction to prevent removal pending the judicial review became moot. The ruling concerned permission to bring judicial review proceedings; it did not determine a full judicial review hearing.