The High Court has refused an Iraqi applicant leave to seek judicial review of a decision that Austria was responsible for examining his international protection application. The ruling concerned whether Ireland’s take back request to Austria contained an arguable jurisdictional error; it did not decide the applicant’s challenge through a full judicial review hearing.
The applicant sought asylum in Ireland in February 2016. Fingerprint searches showed earlier records in Greece and Austria. At an interview on 30 March, he said he had travelled from Austria to Iraq in September 2015 and later returned to Europe. He showed the interviewer an untranslated document and agreed to provide the original, which the interviewer said should be submitted within 7 to 10 days.
Ireland sent Austria a take back request on 7 April. The form said no documents had been submitted and stated there was no material evidence that the applicant had left the territory of the EU. The applicant’s documents, including medical and police-related reports that he said supported his presence in Iraq, were submitted to the Irish authorities on 12 April. Austria accepted the request on 18 April. On 4 May, Ireland notified the applicant that Austria was responsible under Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation.
The applicant argued that Ireland should have told Austria about the documents and provided copies, and that its statement about the absence of material evidence was unlawful. He said the errors affected the transfer decision because it relied on Austria accepting the request.
Justice Mac Eochaidh found the form’s statement that no documents had been submitted was correct when it was signed: Ireland had received no documents by 7 April. The applicant had shown an untranslated document at interview, but submitted it and other documents later. The court therefore found no arguable error in the form on that ground.
The judge said Austria was, in principle, entitled to know what the applicant had told Irish officials about proving his return to Iraq and absence from the EU. He noted that the request was sent before the stated submission period had expired, and that the applicant might complain it should have waited. But the applicant had not raised premature submission or breach of due process as grounds in these proceedings.
The judge treated the statement that there was no material evidence as an evaluative assessment, not an error as to jurisdiction. Any error in that assessment would be within jurisdiction and could be pursued through an administrative appeal. The court refused leave to seek judicial review and said the complaints about the request’s contents could be pursued before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.