The first applicant was a Somali national who arrived in Ireland on 29 May 2022 and immediately requested international protection. The International Protection Office (IPO) received an Eurodac Report on 8 June 2022, which stated that the applicant first arrived in Greece in December 2019 and applied for international protection, receiving refugee status in June 2020. The IPO rejected the applicant's request on 5 July 2023, deeming it inadmissible. The applicant then appealed before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), stating that he lived in the Moria refugee camp where he was facing inhumane conditions. The IPAT also considered his application inadmissible, citing his previous refugee status in Greece. The tribunal found that the applicant did not demonstrate attempts to seek social assistance, employment, or housing despite his conditions in Moria camp. Moreover, it noted he had previously navigated the bureaucratic processes to obtain a residence card and travel documents, indicating he had the capability to seek help. The IPAT found no substantial evidence that he would face homelessness or extreme poverty upon return. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the Tribunal before the High Court.

The second applicant, a Somali national, applied for international protection in Ireland on 15 April 2022, citing persecution and discrimination. He also stated that the Al-Shabaab militia had attempted to kill him. The applicant first arrived in Greece in 2021, where he was granted international protection status, and he remained there for one year. The applicant stated that he lived in the Moria camp and expressed his fears of extreme material poverty and safety concerns upon returning there. The IPO rejected the applicant's request on 26 June 2023, deeming it inadmissible. The applicant then appealed before the IPAT on 5 July 2023. The IPAT also considered his application inadmissible, in view of his previous refugee status in Greece. Furthermore, the IPAT noted that the applicant had not made significant efforts to seek accommodation or employment during his time in Greece. Although the applicant cited difficulties, the tribunal emphasized that evidence suggested that not all refugees face destitution and that services exist. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the Tribunal before the High Court.

While the proceedings were the subject of separate and distinct legal challenges, the High Court ruled on both cases, stating that there were evident common features to the two cases and similarities between the two tribunal decisions, while also noting that the cases are part of a wider group of cases concerning transfers to Greece of applicants who had been granted international protection there.

The High Court considered the guiding principles in these two cases are those set out by the CJEU in Ibrahim (Joined Cases C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, 19 March 2019), it also considered other relevant CJEU case law and the principle of mutual trust to highlight that the applicants must demonstrate that there is a real risk of suffering treatment in breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter having regard to the individual circumstances and vulnerabilities of the applicant. To this end, it noted that a high degree of insecurity or a significant degradation of living conditions would be insufficient to prove such a risk and that the threshold of severity of treatment is very high and needs to be proved by the person concerned. The starting point of the assessment of the evidence is the presumption that another EU country would act in good faith and would respect the fundamental rights of a person pursuant to the principle of mutual trust, reciprocity, and confidence. The duty to rebut this presumption is for the applicant and the mere possibility of ill-treatment is not sufficient. The court stated that the applicants did not prove that they would personally face a real or serious risk of extreme material deprivation if transferred to Greece.

Considering the above, the court upheld the Tribunal's decisions and dismissed the appeals. 

The High Court also referred to the EUAA's report on Jurisprudence on Secondary Movements by Beneficiaries of International Protection (2022).