The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by two anonymised applicants for international protection against a decision to transfer their cases to the United Kingdom for examination. The Court held that the information request sent to UK authorities did not breach the Dublin III Regulation, that Ireland could provide the applicants’ fingerprints, and that the transfer request was made within the applicable time limit.
The applicants challenged a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision of 14 July 2015, which upheld the transfer decision made by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) on 19 May 2015. The transfer decision followed a UK response indicating that fingerprints supplied by Ireland matched records held under different names. The UK records showed multi-visit visas issued in Warsaw, valid from 23 October 2014 to 23 April 2015. The UK agreed to take charge of the applications.
The applicants argued that ORAC’s Article 34 information request did not explain its grounds adequately and that the fingerprints should not have been sent without a specific request from the UK. They also challenged the timing of the take charge request under Article 21. The respondents maintained that any shortcoming in the form did not give the applicants a right to challenge the decision, and that the fingerprints were lawfully shared.
Justice Dunne found that the form’s explanation was terse and that ideally it would have included more detail. However, she concluded that it was not so deficient as to breach Article 34(4). The UK had enough information to respond and could have sought further details if needed. She also held that Article 34 did not prohibit Ireland from sending fingerprints, which had been lawfully taken and could be communicated under the Refugee Act 1996.
The take charge request was made on 16 March 2015, three months after the applications were lodged. The Court held that Article 21’s requirement to act “as quickly as possible” encourages expedition but does not displace the three-month outer limit. It found no error by the Tribunal on this issue.
Because the Court found no relevant breach, it said questions about erasing data or excluding the UK information did not arise. It declined to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union and dismissed the appeals. The ruling did not determine disputed factual questions about how the visas were obtained or what the applicants had said about their travel.