BS & RS v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors [2019] IESC 32 (22 May 2019)

BS & RS v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors [2019] IESC 32 (22 May 2019)

The Supreme Court held that the information request sent by ORAC to the UK, while terse and not in strict compliance with Article 34(4), was sufficient for the purposes of the Regulation and did not amount to a breach conferring justiciable rights on the applicants. The provision of fingerprints was lawful under Irish law and the Regulation. The take charge request was made within the three-month period and the 'as quickly as possible' requirement is directory, not mandatory. No breach of the applicants' rights occurred and no remedy was warranted.

Citation
[2019] IESC 32
Parties
Applicant/appellant: B. S.; Applicant/appellant: R. S.; Respondent: The Refugee Appeals Tribunal; Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Notice Party: The Refugee Applications Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Affirming High Court Refusal of Relief
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dublin III Regulation, Asylum Procedure, Data Protection, Judicial Review, Effective Remedy, Interstate Information Requests
Immigration Law European Union Law Administrative Law Dublin III Regulation Asylum Procedure Data Protection Judicial Review Effective Remedy +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. S.

Applicant/appellant

R. S.

Applicant/appellant

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

The Refugee Applications Commissioner

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Affirming High Court Refusal of Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ORAC breached Article 34(4) of the Dublin III Regulation in its information request to the UK
  2. 2 Whether sending fingerprints with the information request breached Article 34(4) and 34(2) of the Dublin III Regulation
  3. 3 Whether any breach of the Dublin III Regulation is justiciable by the applicants under Articles 27 or 34(9)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the information request sent by ORAC to the UK, while terse and not in strict compliance with Article 34(4), was sufficient for the purposes of the Regulation and did not amount to a breach conferring justiciable rights on the applicants. The provision of fingerprints was lawful under Irish law and the Regulation. The take charge request was made within the three-month period and the 'as quickly as possible' requirement is directory, not mandatory. No breach of the applicants' rights occurred and no remedy was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order quashing the transfer decision
  • No order for erasure of data or disregard of information obtained from the UK