In September 2019, a Georgian national applied for international protection in Ireland. The applicant had a preliminary interview (section 13 process) but did not complete the application for international protection, namely the interview (section 15 process) required to lodge his application. This was due to his need for a Georgian interpreter, and he was told that the application could be postponed until a Georgian translator could be arranged; however, he claimed that he did not hear from the International Protection Office (IPO) about an appointment date. 

The applicant's social worker managed to arrange him an appointment in December 2020 to complete the section 15 process, and an international protection questionnaire was given to the applicant to complete. The applicant requested legal aid and later extensions to the deadline for returning the questionnaire, including for reasons related to COVID-19 and obtaining a translator, which were granted by the IPO.  

In June 2020, the applicant applied for labour market entry authorisation, but the IPO rejected the application as it determined that the applicant was responsible in causing the delay in completing the application for international protection. The applicant appealed the decision to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), who rejected the appeal and confirmed the Labour Market Access Unit's (LMAU) decision. The applicant then filed a judicial review procedure to overturn the IPAT's judgment to the High Court. 

The High Court upheld the appeal, ruling that the LMAU's refusal was unjustified, and that there was no evidence that the delay was caused by the applicant in the events that happened between his application for international protection and submission of the questionnaire. Moreover, it was held that the IPAT's upholding of this judgment was unreasonable in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, associated public health measures, and the IPO's flexibility in postponing procedures and granting extensions during this period. The court further held that the LMAU's opinion was further not supported by evidence, and the concept of fair processes was not observed. In addition, the applicant was not informed of the IPO's conclusion that he had not cooperated with the appropriate authorities, causing a delay in the processing of his application.

The High Court further noted an important distinction between the labour market access provisions under Article 15 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU and its transposition in regulation 11 of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 (SI 230/2018). It noted that regulation 11(4)(b) states that a labour market access permission will be granted subject to certain conditions being met, including that the delay in processing a protection application “cannot be attributed, or attributed in part, to the applicant”, whereas Article 15 of the Directive provides that the delay “cannot be attributed to the applicant.” As such, the transposition of the Directive diluted the provisions of the Directive on labour market access.