The High Court has granted a Somali woman leave to challenge decisions requiring her transfer from Ireland to Sweden, but refused to stop her deportation while the case proceeds.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 29 July 2024, Ms Justice Gearty said the applicant had reached the low threshold of showing an arguable case on at least one ground. The central issue was whether the Minister’s power to allow Ireland to examine her international protection application under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation could be exercised by an official acting on the Minister’s behalf.
The court granted leave to seek certiorari of the Minister’s 10 May 2024 refusal to grant an Article 17 derogation and IPAT’s decision requiring her transfer to Sweden. It also extended time for the challenge to IPAT’s decision, which had been brought ten days late. The judge said the applicant had moved promptly after the later Article 17 decision and had sworn that she intended to bring proceedings after receiving advice to await that decision.
The applicant arrived in Sweden in 2017 and made international protection applications there, both of which were rejected. She came to Ireland in February 2023 and applied for protection on 21 February. Sweden accepted a request to take her back, and the International Protection Office issued a transfer decision in July 2023. IPAT affirmed that decision in February 2024. The judgment gives both 12 February and 19 February as the date of IPAT’s decision.
The applicant argued that her medical conditions and the prospect of inadequate reception conditions or return to Somalia justified an exception to the transfer rules. The Minister’s decision found no humanitarian or compassionate grounds for an exception, no evidence of a Swedish deportation order against her, and no evidence that she could not access medical care there. The judge described the medical challenge as weak but stateable, noting that the records showed conditions being treated in Sweden.
The court refused an injunction. It said the transfer deadline was approaching in August and that, if it passed, Sweden would be relieved of its obligation to take the applicant back and Ireland would become responsible for her. The judge found insufficient evidence of systemic concerns about Sweden, refoulement or imminent risk to the applicant’s health. She said the applicant could be returned to Ireland if she ultimately succeeded in the judicial review, and need not be present for it to continue.
The judgment granted leave and an extension of time at this stage; it did not decide the substantive judicial review grounds. The court said it would hear the parties on consequential orders.