The applicant, a Somali national, applied for international protection in Ireland in August 2022. The applicant stated that he was fleeing Al Shabab, which had killed his father and two brothers. The applicant was informed on 31 January 2023, that his application was being transferred to France under the Dublin III Regulation. On 7 February 2023, the applicant filed an appeal with the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), claiming that while in France, he became homeless and was living on the streets in Paris. The applicant contended that France had poor reception conditions for asylum seekers, stating that they constitute a risk of harm under Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and a threat to private life under Articles 7 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The IPAT rejected the appeal on the grounds that country of origin information deems France as a safe country, and thus upheld the transfer decision.

On 22 September 2023, the applicant submitted a declaration to support an appeal for judicial review of the IPAT's judgement supporting the decision to transfer the applicant's protection claim to France while also disputing the deportation order. In late December 2023, the applicant requested an injunction/stay restraining his deportation, and Ms. Justice Hyland concluded that he was not entitled to one. Ms. Justice Hyland evaluated the respondents position, specifically the fact that they would lose the right to transfer him under the Dublin III Regulation. In addition, Ms. Justice Hyland considered the impact on the applicant, including the medical evidence regarding his return to France, but determined that the balance of convenience favoured rejecting the injunction/stay. In these proceedings, there was further no reference of an application under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation, or of his pending decision on Article 17.

On 26 January 2024, the judicial review proceedings were discontinued, and a costs order was issued against the applicant. On 29 January, new proceedings were issued, and the High Court was asked to hear an injunction application in those new proceedings the next day, on the basis that the applicant had been told to report to the airport in the coming days, and thus it was expected that he would be transferred on that day in accordance with the existing Dublin transfer decision.

In the injunction application, the applicant stated that no decision had been made on his application under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation, which was submitted in December 2022, and additional submissions made in January 2024, and that he could not be deported while his Article 17 application was pending because the arguments made had not yet been determined by the Minister. The applicant relied on the pending case of AHY v the Minister for Justice, arguing that because the CJEU may rule in that case that judicial review proceedings challenging a refusal to grant Article 17 may have suspensive effect under Article 29 of the Dublin III Regulation, he should not be transferred pending the outcome of the case. The applicant further asserted that the six-month deadline specified in Article 29 had not begun since no legal transfer decision had been made, as the Article 17 decision must be made concurrently with the transfer decision. The High Court acknowledged that the latter argument requires an applicant to seek a determination under Article 17 prior to the transfer decision. The applicant further claimed that the inability to offer clarification on the Article 17 procedure had caused uncertainty among applicants, pointing to the absence of any application process or form. The applicant contended that the application's last-minute character was due to the State's delay in adjudicating an application filed on 19 December 2022.

The respondent asserted that Article 17 relief was only made on 24 January 2024, and therefore the letter dated 19 December 2022, was not an Article 17 application. The respondent claimed that the issues raised in the December 2023 injunction application regarding threats to his life and health, which were denied at the time, are raised again, and that no new reasons justifying a last-minute application have been uncovered. The respondent claimed that there is prejudice since the Minister will lose the ability to return him entirely, even if the CJEU agrees with the Advocate General that a challenge to an Article 17 refusal has no suspensive effect. The eleventh-hour character of this application was stated to be particularly crucial to the balance of justice, and the applicant is accused of misusing the international protection system. It was also said that if the Minister is not allowed to transfer those who have already applied for international protection in other Member States and have been denied, the Dublin III Regulation would be undermined. The respondent stated that it is worth noting that the applicant in these proceedings had filed two similar applications and been denied in France and Germany. It was further contended that if it is discovered that the applicant was incorrectly moved following the ruling in AHY, the applicant may be returned.

The High Court concluded that the applicant had failed to establish an arguable case, and that the balance of justice favoured rejecting the application for injunctive relief or a stay. Despite noting the hardships he faced in France upon his return, the High Court ruled that the applicant did not make a clear application under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation. There was no mention of Article 17 or a request that the Minister examine his application under Article 17 in the letter dated 19 December 2022. The request was submitted to the International Protection Office, which does not have the responsibility for Article 17 determinations, according to the Supreme Court ruling in NVU (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others. In addition, there was no reference to Article 17 in the judicial review brought before the IPAT. The court noted that the applicant could have submitted an application under Article 17 when he came to Ireland in 2022, but instead waited until he was subject to a decision to deport him, which was judicially reviewed by the IPAT. Then he requested an injunction/stay to prevent his deportation, which was denied, and only then did he file his application under Article 17 to be exercised on 24 January 2024. In the balance of factors, the court determined that the applicant could have made the application in 2022 but did not. There was also no explanation provided by the applicant for the lateness of the application as well as the fact that there was no challenge to a refusal under Article 17. The court was further swayed by the fact that the respondent will lose the right to return the applicant to France under the Dublin III Regulation, but if the applicant is found to be correct after the judgement in AHY, the applicant will be permitted to return to Ireland.