A Georgian man has failed in his High Court bid to halt his transfer to France where he was previously refused international and subsidiary protection.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said the risk to him does not outweigh the “very strong arguments” in favour of refusing to stop his deportation.
The applicant, who cannot be identified, asked her to block the Minister for Justice and Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) from moving him while his wider judicial review challenge to the transfer decision is pending.
The transfer, initially approved by the International Protection Office, was affirmed last September by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) under a European rule referred to as the Dublin III Regulation.
The regulation provides that a person can be returned to the EU member state that first accepts responsibility for their application. Subject to some exceptions, the return must occur within six months of a finalised transfer decision or the latter state will assume responsibility.
Ms Justice Hyland said the State parties argued that an order pausing the man’s transfer until his High Court case is determined would effectively decide the case as it is unlikely a court judgment would be given before February 20th, when the six-month window closes.
Timeframe
The man’s lawyers contended that the six-month timeframe would pause if the court imposed a stay on the IPAT’s decision.
The judge disagreed, finding that the clock would continue to run, so a stay would “very likely prevent” the State from being able to ask France to take the man back.
She said the Dublin III Regulation allows an applicant to appeal a first instance decision but explicitly provides that the six months start to run when the appeal body (here IPAT) makes a final decision.
A member state can provide a third layer of decision-making, such as judicial review, but the judge said she believes this cannot interfere with the EU regime’s timeline.
The IPO issued a transfer decision last February, which the IPAT affirmed on appeal.
The man claimed he was detained and beaten in France by people from Georgia from whom he had fled.
The IPAT heard from a doctor who concluded there was evidence consistent with a history of torture in Georgia and re-traumatisation by Georgian men ransacking his room at a French hostel. The doctor reported that the man would be at high risk of suicide if returned to France.
Ruling on the man’s challenge to the IPAT decision, Ms Justice Hyland said failure to complete the transfer by February 20th will relinquish France’s obligation to accept him. On the other hand, if his legal proceedings lead to a finding that the transfer was unlawful, he must be returned to Ireland.
The judge said the man cannot rely on his concerns about refoulement if returned to France as a reason for her to grant an injunction.
There were inconsistencies in his evidence about his experience in France, while there was nothing to show medical services there would be unable to address any risk of suicide the doctor said will arise if he is returned, Ms Justice Hyland said. There are no systemic concerns about France.
While the doctor’s report shows there is “undoubtedly” a risk to him if transferred, the presence of that risk does not outweigh the factors for refusing his request, the judge added.
