The High Court has refused a Zimbabwean man’s challenge to a decision that his international protection application should be dealt with in France under the Dublin III system.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley held that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had adequately considered D.S.’s individual circumstances, including HIV, latent tuberculosis, complex PTSD, severe depression, anxiety and reported suicidal thoughts.
D.S. arrived in Ireland on 14 April 2023 after travelling through several countries and applied for international protection that day. France had previously accepted responsibility under the Dublin system. The International Protection Office decided in November 2023 that he should be transferred there, and the Tribunal upheld that decision on 30 June 2025.
D.S. argued in the High Court that his transfer would expose him to a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the EU Charter. He relied particularly on a September 2023 medicolegal report from Dr Joan Giller, who assessed him as being at high risk of suicide if transferred to France, Austria or Zimbabwe.
The Tribunal had accepted that D.S. was vulnerable and had serious mental health difficulties. It nevertheless concluded that he would be screened for vulnerability in France, could access medical care and would not face inhuman or degrading treatment.
Mr Justice Bradley found that, although the Tribunal did not expressly cite the CJEU’s decision in CK, its assessment met the substance of the required legal test. He also took account of evidence from the Department of Justice about procedures for passing medical information to receiving states, arranging medical support during transfers and postponing transfers where necessary.
An updated September 2025 report from Dr Giller described a further deterioration in D.S.’s mental health and a significant suicide risk. However, that report had not been before the Tribunal when it made the challenged decision.
The judge refused all judicial review relief. He proposed formally dismissing the application and listed costs and other consequential matters for the following day.