Tabrizagh & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimants in these consolidated cases have all made asylum claims in the United Kingdom but had previously made claims in Italy, or had been present in Italy. They resist their return to Italy under the Dublin Regulation, arguing that removal to Italy would expose them to a real risk of breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically the risk of ill-treatment. The Claimants contend that their Article 3 claims are arguable and that the Defendant, the Secretary of State, erred in certifying their claims as 'clearly unfounded', thereby denying them an in-country right of appeal against removal.

The Secretary of State contests these claims, asserting that the Claimants' allegations of ill-treatment in Italy do not meet the Article 3 threshold and that certification as clearly unfounded was appropriate. The central procedural issue is whether the appeals based on these Article 3 claims would be bound to fail before the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) ("the FTT"). The court must assess the claims at their highest while scrutinizing the legal merits and reliability of supporting evidence.

Each Claimant's individual circumstances and experiences in Italy were examined, including allegations of poor reception conditions, lack of accommodation, and risks of ill-treatment. The Secretary of State issued multiple certificates deeming their Article 3 claims clearly unfounded, following detailed consideration of medical reports, asylum procedures, and international reports on Italy's asylum system. The court also reviewed relevant reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Swiss Refugee Council (SRC), and other bodies, as well as the legal framework governing asylum claims and returns under the Dublin Regulation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the test for deciding whether a claimant has an arguable Article 3 claim arising from the Secretary of State's intention to return him to Italy?
2. Whether the evidence on which the Claimants rely satisfies that test.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• The Claimants argue for an in-country right of appeal against removal to Italy on the basis that removal would expose them to a real risk of breach of Article 3 ECHR rights.
• They contend that their claims are arguable and that the Secretary of State erred in certifying them as clearly unfounded.
• The Claimants rely on various reports from NGOs and international bodies indicating deficiencies in Italy's asylum system and reception conditions that could amount to systemic failures.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Secretary of State argues that the Claimants' Article 3 claims are bound to fail as there is no evidence that Italy fails to comply with its obligations under the Dublin Regulation and related EU directives.
• She asserts that Italy provides adequate reception conditions, medical care, and asylum procedures consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
• The Secretary of State relies on recent UNHCR reports and admissibility decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that affirm Italy's compliance and reject claims of systemic deficiencies.
• Certification as clearly unfounded was appropriate because the evidential presumption of compliance by Italy was not displaced by the Claimants' evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the test established in Soering v UK and refined by subsequent jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court decision in EM (Eritrea), which clarifies that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures and reception conditions of the receiving state are not a prerequisite to resisting transfer under the Dublin Regulation. Instead, the key inquiry is whether there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

The court acknowledged the significant evidential presumption that member states, including Italy, comply with their obligations under EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the ECHR. This presumption is rebuttable, but the Claimants must present substantial evidence showing either systemic flaws or individual risk factors amounting to a real risk of Article 3 breach.

The court carefully reviewed the Claimants’ individual circumstances, medical evidence, and reports from international bodies such as the UNHCR and the ECtHR admissibility decisions. It found that the most authoritative and up-to-date reports, particularly the 2013 UNHCR report, did not demonstrate systemic deficiencies in Italy’s asylum system sufficient to displace the evidential presumption of compliance.

While some operational difficulties and deficiencies exist, these do not rise to the level of systemic flaws as defined in the case law. The court found that the Braunschweig and SRC reports, relied upon by the Claimants, were either outdated, speculative, or less authoritative than the UNHCR reports, and thus entitled to little weight.

Regarding individual Claimants, the court found no credible evidence of personal circumstances or medical conditions that would place them at real risk of ill-treatment if returned to Italy. The Claimants had not demonstrated that they would be unable to claim asylum or renew protection status in Italy, nor that they would be denied access to healthcare or accommodation.

The court further considered the distinction between beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) and asylum seekers, noting that BIPs are entitled to rights comparable to Italian nationals, including access to work and social benefits, and that economic hardship alone does not constitute an Article 3 breach. The court rejected arguments that Italy’s limited integration facilities for BIPs amount to a breach of Article 3.

In sum, the court concluded that the Secretary of State’s certification decisions were lawful, and that the Claimants’ appeals would be bound to fail before the FTT.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the applications for judicial review, upholding the Secretary of State’s certification of the Claimants’ Article 3 claims as clearly unfounded.

This decision means that the Claimants have no in-country right of appeal against removal to Italy under the Dublin Regulation on the basis of their Article 3 claims. The ruling confirms the application of the evidential presumption of compliance by member states with their obligations and affirms that systemic deficiencies need not be shown for an Article 3 claim to be arguable, but that the Claimants failed to meet the real risk threshold.

The court’s reasoning aligns with existing case law from the Supreme Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights, and does not establish new precedent but rather applies established principles to the facts before it.