The High Court has granted a Somali national leave to challenge the Minister for Justice’s refusal to let Ireland examine his international protection claim. It also ordered an interim injunction preventing steps to remove him from the State while the judicial review is determined.
The ruling is at the leave stage: the judge found that the applicant had arguable grounds, not that his challenges had been proved. The court’s order does not decide whether the Minister’s refusal was lawful or whether Ireland must take responsibility for his claim.
The applicant arrived in Ireland from Sweden in January 2020 and applied for international protection. Sweden had agreed to take back his application, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal upheld the transfer decision in October 2021. The applicant later asked the Minister to use Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation to allow his claim to be examined in Ireland.
The Minister refused that request on 16 February 2022, saying the material did not disclose humanitarian or compassionate grounds to exercise the discretion. The decision said there was no indicated risk to his rights from transfer and no evidence that appropriate medical treatment was unavailable in Sweden.
The applicant relied on reports from psychotherapist Dr Joan Giller describing suicidal ideation and a serious risk of suicide if he were returned to Sweden. A report dated 2 February 2022 was not before the decision-maker when the refusal was issued. In an addendum dated 11 March, the decision-maker said that considering it would not have changed the outcome.
Justice Cian Ferriter held that the applicant had an arguable case that the Minister had not properly considered the medical evidence and his rights arguments, including whether a proportionality assessment was required. He also granted leave to challenge the addendum and to argue that Article 27 of Dublin III may provide an effective remedy and suspensive relief in a judicial review of an Article 17 refusal. Those questions remain for later determination.
In granting the injunction, the judge said the balance of justice exceptionally favoured keeping the applicant in Ireland pending the case, given the medical evidence and the risk alleged. He stressed that the seriousness of the evidence was an important factor and that the balance could differ in another case.
The court said it proposes to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union about the relationship between Articles 17, 27 and 29, including whether a transfer must wait while an Article 17 refusal is challenged. It had not settled the precise questions at the time of this judgment; it directed further discussion with counsel.