Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
20/05/2022
IE: The High Court ruled that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal was correct in transferring an applicant from Iran to Sweden under the Dublin III Regulation, despite the applicant first applying for international protection in Belgium.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP); Eurodac Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 on the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States'
Reference
Ireland, High Court, M v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor, [2022] IEHC 358, 20 May 2022. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=3104
Case history
Other information
Abstract

According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:


"to arriving in Ireland, the applicant from Iran had applied for international protection first in Belgium, then in Sweden and then in the UK. Ireland requested that Sweden and the UK take back the applicant, the UK refused on the basis that Sweden had previously accepted its take back request. Sweden accepted Ireland’s request pursuant to Article 18(d) of the Dublin III Regulation and the Tribunal upheld the transfer decision.


It was contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding Sweden was the responsible Member State. It was asserted Belgium was the correct Member State, being the first Member State in which the applicant sought international protection.


The Court determined the Tribunal erred in concluding Sweden failed to make a take back request, noting that other possible explanations were available. The Court concluded that this error was irrelevant given that Sweden had accepted that it was the responsible Member State, and, applying the criteria, it was the responsible Member State. Certiorari refused"
Country of Decision
Ireland
Court Name
IE: High Court
Case Number
[2022] IEHC 358
Date of Decision
20/05/2022
Country of Origin
Iran
Keywords
Dublin procedure