The case concerned the legality of decisions refusing the applicants’ access to the labour market while their Dublin transfer to another Member State had been requested. 

In the first case (C-322/19), the first applicant, K.S., is a Pakistani national, who travelled to the United Kingdom and then to Ireland where he lodged an application for international protection on 11 May 2015. On 9 March 2016, the Irish authorities decided to transfer K.S. to the United Kingdom based on the Dublin III Regulation. K.S. appealed the decision and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Ireland) dismissed the action on 17 August 2016. K.S. then further appealed before the Irish High Court where the proceedings are still pending. During these proceedings, K.S. requested permission to access the labour market, an application which was dismissed on 19 July 2018. K.S. appealed the decision and, on 11 September 2018, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal upheld the refusal arguing that applicants for which another Member State is responsible pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation did not enjoy the right of access to the labour market. K.S. appealed the decision before the High Court, which stayed the proceedings and referred several questions to the CJEU.  

Similar proceedings took place in the case of the second applicant, M.H.K., a Bangladeshi national, whose application for international protection, lodged in Ireland, was to be transferred to the United Kingdom based on the Dublin III Regulation. The appeal lodged by M.H.K. against his application for permission to access the labour market was dismissed on 16 August 2018. The appeal was dismissed by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal by decision of 17 October 2018, which held that access to the labour market was not covered by ‘material reception conditions.’ 

In the second case (C-385/19), the applicants, R.A.T. and D.S., are Iraqi nationals who applied for international protection in Ireland and who are subject to Dublin transfer decisions to the United Kingdom and to Austria respectively. They both applied for access to the labour market and their requests were dismissed as they no longer had the status of ‘applicants’ in Ireland. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal deemed their appeals admissible. 

The High Court and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal asked the CJEU whether an applicant for international protection who is the subject of a Dublin transfer decision may rely on Article 15(1) of the Reception Conditions Directive. 

The CJEU noted that for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of the Reception Conditions Directive, the provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive, which does not apply in Ireland, constitute “relevant and necessary contextual elements”. Therefore, a national court in Ireland must take into account the Asylum Procedures Directive when interpreting the provisions of the Reception Conditions Directive. 

With regard to the issue of access to the labour market, the CJEU noted that Article 2(b) of the Reception Conditions Directive defines an ‘applicant’ as “a third-country national or stateless person who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken” and Article 2(b) does not distinguish between applicants who are the subject of a Dublin transfer procedure and those who are not. In addition, a Dublin transfer decision is not a final decision on an application for international protection. Furthermore, recital 8 of the Reception Conditions Directive states that the directive applies during all stages and types of procedures “as long as applicants are allowed to remain on the territory of the Member States in that capacity.”  

The CJEU noted that this interpretation is supported by recital 27 of the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32, which states that third-country nationals and stateless persons are applicants if they expressed their wish to apply for international protection, and by recital 11 of the Dublin III Regulation which states that the Reception Conditions Directive applies to the Dublin procedure. 

The CJEU made reference to Cimade and GISTI (C-179/11, EU:C:2012:594), where it was held that “the obligations for the Member State in receipt of such an application to grant the minimum conditions laid down by Directive 2003/9 cease only when that applicant has actually been transferred by that Member State” (par. 58). The CJEU also noted the benefits that access to work can have for the person’s human dignity, social inclusion and self-sufficiency, as well as for the host Member State. 

Thus, the CJEU held that “the obligation on the Member State concerned, pursuant to Article 15(1) of Directive 2013/33, to grant the applicant for international protection access to the labour market ceases only when that applicant is finally transferred to the requested Member State” and “Article 15 of Directive 2013/33 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes an applicant for international protection from access to the labour market on the sole ground that a transfer decision has been taken in his or her regard under the Dublin III Regulation.”