T.T. (Transfer Decision) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant lodged an application for international protection in Ireland on 26 January 2023 following a prior application in Sweden in June 2019, which had been rejected and finally disposed of in March 2022. Upon a fingerprint match ("EURODAC hit") with Swedish authorities, the Irish International Protection Office ("IPO") decided on 19 May 2023 to transfer the Applicant's protection application back to Sweden under the "take back" mechanism of the Dublin III Regulation. The Applicant appealed this transfer decision to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal ("IPAT").

The Irish State had designated IPAT as a competent authority for appeals under the Dublin III Regulation in March 2018 but failed to notify the European Commission of this designation until December 2023, several years after the designation. The European Commission subsequently published a consolidated list of competent authorities including IPAT in March 2024.

The Applicant challenged the validity of IPAT’s jurisdiction to determine his appeal on the basis that the State’s delay in notifying the European Commission invalidated the application of the Dublin III Regulation to his case. Judicial review proceedings were instituted on 26 March 2024, and leave to apply for judicial review was granted ex parte on 13 May 2024. The judicial review hearing occurred on 23 July 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Irish State’s significant delay in notifying the European Commission of IPAT’s designation as a competent authority under Article 35 of the Dublin III Regulation affects the validity of IPAT’s jurisdiction to determine appeals against transfer decisions.
2. Whether the Dublin III Regulation applies to cases where the appeal was initiated prior to the notification but decided after the notification.
3. Whether any procedural irregularity in notification prevents the Irish State from enforcing the Dublin III Regulation against the Applicant.
4. Whether the Applicant is estopped from raising the notification issue, having not raised it before the IPO or IPAT.
5. Whether the Applicant can rely on an alleged lack of training of IPAT members as a ground for judicial review.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The delay in notifying the European Commission of IPAT’s designation renders the Dublin III Regulation inapplicable to the Applicant’s appeal, as notification is a necessary step to perfect IPAT’s designation.
• As a consequence, IPAT lacked lawful authority to make the appeal determination under the Dublin III Regulation.
• The Applicant is entitled to have his international protection application determined in Ireland rather than transferred.
• The Applicant referenced Article 35 of the Dublin III Regulation, which requires Member States to notify the Commission without delay and ensure that competent authorities receive necessary training, arguing that these requirements were not met.
• The Applicant also mentioned an argument relating to the training of IPAT members, though this was not pursued in the judicial review as leave was not granted on this ground.

Respondents' Arguments

• The delay in notification did not affect the validity of IPAT’s designation or its jurisdiction because the notification was made before IPAT’s decision on the appeal.
• Publication of the list of competent authorities in the Official Journal is not a prerequisite for effective designation, as the Regulation contemplates annual publication.
• The designation of competent authorities is a matter of domestic law and is not dependent on notification to or approval by the European Commission.
• The European Commission’s role is limited to monitoring, not vetting or approving designations.
• The Applicant was aware of the competent authority and exercised his right of appeal, benefiting from its suspensive effect.
• The Applicant is estopped from raising the notification issue as it was not raised before the IPO or IPAT, though the court did not find it necessary to decide this point definitively.
• The Respondents denied any deficiency in training claims and noted no such challenge was properly pleaded.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 8, [2021] 1 I.R. 666	Designation of competent authorities as a matter of domestic law.	Supported the principle that designation is a domestic law matter, distinct from notification to the European Commission.
Skoma-Lux, Case C-161/06, EU:C:2007:773	EU legislation not published in the official language of a Member State is unenforceable against individuals in that State, but the legislation remains valid.	Distinguished from the present case as the publication obligation in Dublin III Regulation is periodic and not a prerequisite for designation validity.
Aslanidou, Case C-142/04, EU:C:2005:473	Failure to designate a competent authority does not prevent the directive from being relied upon against a national authority with de facto competence; Member States cannot rely on their own default to deny individual rights.	Applied by analogy to argue that delay in notification does not undermine validity of designation already made under domestic law.
AHY v. Minister for Justice, Case C-359/22, EU:C:2024:334	Six-month time limit on the validity of a transfer order under the Dublin III Regulation.	Referenced regarding the Applicant’s concern about execution of the transfer order pending judicial review.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by noting the key issue: the delay by the Irish State in notifying the European Commission of IPAT’s designation as a competent authority under Article 35 of the Dublin III Regulation. Despite the delay, the notification was made before IPAT rendered its decision on the Applicant’s appeal in February 2024.

The Court reasoned that the critical date for assessing IPAT’s jurisdiction is the date of its decision, not the date the appeal was lodged. Since the notification had occurred by the decision date, any defect in notification was effectively cured.

The Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that publication in the Official Journal was a necessary prerequisite for effective designation, noting that the Regulation contemplates annual publication and uses less imperative language for publication than for notification.

The Court distinguished the designation of competent authorities, which is a domestic law matter, from the notification to the European Commission, which serves transparency and monitoring functions. The European Commission does not vet or approve designations.

The Court considered the purposes of Article 35 notification: transparency, facilitating Commission monitoring, and data protection. It found no evidence that these purposes were frustrated by the delay. The Applicant was aware of IPAT’s role and exercised his appeal rights accordingly.

The Court reviewed relevant European Court of Justice precedents and found them not directly applicable or supportive of the Applicant’s position. It also addressed the Applicant’s estoppel argument, concluding it was unnecessary to decide definitively but indicating a likely favourable view towards the Applicant if it had been necessary.

The Court dismissed the Applicant’s additional argument regarding training of IPAT members, as it was not properly pleaded and no evidence was adduced.

Finally, the Court noted the interlocutory injunction sought by the Applicant to prevent execution of the transfer order before judgment was delivered. The Minister gave an undertaking not to execute the order pending judgment, which was subsequently delivered.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Applicant’s application for judicial review in its entirety.

The Court held that the belated notification of IPAT’s designation to the European Commission did not affect the validity of IPAT’s decision on the Applicant’s appeal. The designation was effective by the date of IPAT’s decision, and the Dublin III Regulation applied accordingly.

The Minister was released from the undertaking not to execute the transfer order following the judgment.

No new precedent was established beyond clarifying that notification delays under Article 35 do not invalidate competent authority designations once notification is made prior to decision.

The Court gave a provisional view that each party should bear its own costs, recognizing the public interest element in clarifying the legal consequences of notification delay.