The High Court has ruled that Ireland’s designation of the UK as a “safe third country” for returning asylum seekers is contrary to EU law.
In a judgment delivered this morning Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan ruled that a designation made by the Minister for Justice after the UK left the EU was unlawful.
The case concerned the lawfulness of the designation of the UK as a safe third country in light of the controversial immigration policy in the UK known as the “Rwanda policy”.
Under that policy, the UK government seeks to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda for the processing of their claims.
The UK Supreme Court has ruled the policy is unlawful and the Irish High Court was told the situation was still in a state of flux.
The case before the High Court questioned the legal basis for designating the UK as a safe third country in circumstances where Ireland’s asylum policy is subject to a common EU policy, the judge said.
Two cases were identified before the High Court as lead cases which could affect a significant number of other cases.
The two had their applications for international protection refused on the basis of their connection with the UK which was designated as a safe third country by the Minister for Justice after the UK left the EU.
The designation allows the Irish authorities to find that an international protection application is inadmissible if the applicant has arrived from the UK.
The person can be returned to the UK, as a safe non-EU country, for their asylum application or situation to be determined there.
The designation is similar to a scheme that exists between EU member states.
Ms Justice Phelan ruled the designation of the UK as a safe third country was unlawful as a matter of EU law because of the absence of certain provisions concerning issues including the risk of serious harm and and the existence in the safe third countries to request refugee status and receive protection.
In the absence of such provisions, the judge ruled the designation of the UK as s safe third country was unlawful as a matter of EU law.
She said there was a failure to make provision in Irish law for effective rules of methodology to ensure that the conditions for designation continue to be met before a return order is made.
There was also a failure to provide for a broader rights analysis prior to the making of a return order which was also contrary to the requirement of EU law, the judge said.
The case returns to court in two weeks to hear arguments from both sides on what orders should be made by the court as a result of today’s judgment.
