MA (Iran) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Participation in the Dublin II Regulation does not, by itself, give an asylum applicant a general right to challenge the allocation of responsibility between member states. A challenge is confined to circumstances in which systemic deficiencies in the proposed state's asylum procedure or reception conditions provide substantial grounds for believing that transfer would expose the applicant to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where the requesting state made a reasonable request and the proposed state accepted responsibility, the requesting state has no further obligation merely because the acceptance may involve a factual error.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal against Stadlen J's dismissal, on 20 May 2013, of judicial review proceedings challenging a decision to remove the applicant to Germany under the Dublin II Regulation. Germany accepted responsibility for examining the asylum claim, although the acceptance was said to be out of time. The applicant argued that she did not qualify for return and that the Regulation conferred a personal right to challenge the allocation decision. The central issues were whether such an individual right existed and, alternatively, whether the United Kingdom had acted unlawfully in requesting Germany's acceptance.

The Court of Appeal, in a single judgment delivered by Lord Justice Pitchford, refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. The Court followed R(AR Iran) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 778, which confirmed that the Dublin II Regulation does not create individual rights enabling an asylum applicant generally to challenge the member states' application of the Regulation. There was no real prospect of overturning that conclusion.
2. The Court relied on Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (case C 394 [2012]). The mutual-confidence principle underlying the common European asylum system means that, where a member state has agreed to take charge under the first-entry criterion in Article 10(1), the applicant's available challenge is confined to systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure or reception conditions which provide substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
3. Even assuming that the applicant could question the Regulation's application more broadly, the Secretary of State had ample material on which to conclude that the request to Germany was reasonable. Germany's acceptance disposed of the matter. The United Kingdom had no further obligations under the Regulation even if Germany had made a factual error in accepting responsibility.
4. The detailed alternative findings concerning the timing of Germany's obligation and the possible application of Article 9 did not provide a realistic basis for permission. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 March 2014, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. [2014] EWCA Civ 417.
• High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Stadlen J dismissed the judicial review claim on 20 May 2013.