BS v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2019] IESC 32
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 May 2019
Judge:Charleton P; Dunne E
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://beta.courts.ie/view/judgments/3f364f15-deef-4098-8e1c-735e0e263847/9c545a00-246d-4221-b164-87d4633e866c/2019_IESC_32_3.pdf/pdf

Facts: The appellants were Albanian nationals who previously lived in Kosovo. They arrived in Ireland on 12 December 2014 and two days later they made an application for asylum. They did not disclose a full account of the circumstances of their arrival in Ireland, in particular that they had previously been issued with a visa for the United Kingdom. On 15 January 2015 the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner made an information request to the United Kingdom authorities under article 34 of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation No.643 of 2013), enclosing the fingerprints of the appellants with the request. On 12 February 2015 the United Kingdom authorities replied stating that pursuant to article 12(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, the United Kingdom was the Member State responsible for examining and determining their applications, on the basis that the appellants’ fingerprints matched with persons who had been issued a multi-visit visa for the United Kingdom at its embassy in Warsaw in 2014.
The appellants subsequently brought judicial review proceedings alleging that the information request was unlawful for failing to set out the basis for the request as required by article 34 of the Dublin III Regulation.
Reasoning:
The Supreme Court rejected this challenge on the basis that the United Kingdom authorities had not raised any issue as to the basis for the request nor had it sought further information as to the grounds on which the request was made. The Supreme Court held that information requests pursuant to article 34 are not intended to require a lengthy account of the grounds for seeking the information, and in circumstances where both the Irish and United Kingdom authorities were well aware of the commonly occurring fact that asylum seekers arrive in Ireland having transited through the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to expressly refer to this fact in the information request. The Supreme Court also rejected the appellants’ argument that the Irish authorities acted in breach of article 34 in sending their fingerprints to the United Kingdom authorities with the relevant information requests, as well as the argument that the Irish authorities had breached the requirement to make “take charge” requests in respect of the appellants as soon as possible.
Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Principles:Information requests pursuant to article 34 of the Dublin III Regulation are not intended to require a lengthy account of the grounds for seeking the information.
Go Back

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *