Two Somali nationals requested international protection in Ireland in separate applications which were rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Section 21 of the International Protection Act 2015 because they are beneficiaries of international protection in Greece. The International Protection Office (IPO) found that A.A.H. was granted refugee status on 23 April 2021, issued with a residence permit (hereafter 'ADET') valid from 5 May 2021 to 4 May 2024 and a travel document valid from 7 October 2021 to 6 October 2026. Also, M.H.A. was granted refugee status on 2 June 2020, issued with an ADET valid from 18 June 2020 to 17 June 2023 and a travel document valid from 19 October 2022 until 18 October 2025. The IPO found that the return of the applicants would not breach Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal hereafter) confirmed the inadmissible decisions by separate rulings.

The High Court pronounced a single judgement concerning both appeals on 6 December 2024 in the case of A.A.H., M.H.A. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Attorney General, The Minister of Justice and Equality. The High Court concluded, by applying the criteria in Ibrahim (Joined Cases C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17 and C‑438/17, 19 March 2019), that the applicants did not demonstrate a risk of treatment contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter upon return to Greece. The court affirmed that despite evidence that suggested a general risk of homelessness and destitution for asylum seekers in Greece, no individualised risk was demonstrated.

The applicants further appealed before the Court of Appeal, arguing that they meet the Ibrahim requirements by the mere fact of belonging to the group of asylum seekers granted protection in Greece, without having an obligation to demonstrate any particular personal risk of finding themselves in a risk of destitution upon return. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the High Court decision. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Tribunal must disclose the available country information relied upon in its decision. 

The Court of Appeal examined the Ibrahim requirement to conduct individualised assessments in such cases, finding that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the applicants had not established that their return to Greece would be in breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter because they had not advanced factors which were individual to their cases and which would put them personally at a real risk.

The applicants further claimed that the Tribunal took into account information contained in the EUAA report on Jurisprudence on Secondary Movements by Beneficiaries of International Protection (2022) without furnishing the applicants and their legal representatives a written indication about the use of that report in the assessment. The applicants argued that if their legal advisors would have been aware of the report, their submissions and the outcome of the case might have been different.

The Court of Appeal also examined the Tribunal’s duties under Section 46(8)(b) of the 2015 Act which requires the Tribunal to indicate in writing the nature and source of any information relating to an appeal that has come to its notice during the proceeding. The Court of Appeal noted that the EUAA report cannot be described as a ‘country of origin information’ but it is considered information within the meaning of Section 46(8)(b) of the 2015 Act. However, the Court of Appeal considered that the requirement Section 46(8)(b) of the 2015 Act demands the Tribunal to furnish an indication in writing of the nature and source of other information - and not the information itself.  The Court of Appeal found that it was not obvious how M.H.A. could consider and make submissions upon a written indication of the nature and source of information, as distinct from that information. 

The Court of Appeal clarified that the Tribunal has the duty, upon request, to indicate in writing the nature and source of any information relating to an appeal that has come to its notice during that appeal only once it has decided same. 

With regard to the merits of the cases, the Court of Appeal noted that both applicants obtained an ADET, allowing access to social services and benefits, upon renewal which was found as a smooth procedure and easy procedure, after reviewing information from NGOs, including AIDA reports.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the findings of the High Court and stated that the latter was correct in applying the Ibrahim standards to conclude that the applicant had not established that his return to Greece would be in breach of Article 4 of the EU Charter in the absence of evidence that there is a significant risk of homelessness and destitution for beneficiaries of international protection generally in Greece and without having demonstrated individual factors amounting to personal and real risk.