International Protection Appeals Tribunal
European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018
Decisions Database
N.B. Please note that the neutral decision identifier and labeling of decisions is using my own format, and not created or approved by IPAT.
2021
| Decision | Core Legal Provisions | Core Outcome
|
| Palestine [2021] IPAT 24 RC | Reg. 11 (4) and Art. 15, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32- attributable delay | Appellant was not forthcoming on issues relating to his grant of refugee status (and subsequent withdrawal) in Belgium. Did not inform Irish authorities in a timely manner of these issues, only doing so when Irish authorities asked him for information on this. Delay in first instance decision was attributable to the appellant. |
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 23 RC | Reg. 11 and Art. 15- Access to the labour market. | Valid IPO decision issued after 5 months and 17 days – not entitled to access the labour market. |
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 22 RC | Reg. 11(4); Reg. 11(8); Reg. 27; Art. 15, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32 – Renewal of labour market access permission- IPO findings as to identity- attributable delay-failure to cooperate. | Appellant was not forthcoming on his identify and failed in his duty to cooperate with IPO. Identity issues put to the appellant at two further Section 35 interviews which delayed issuance of IPO recommendation. Refusal to renew labour market access permission due to attributable delay caused by appellant. |
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 21 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
Appellant had a subsisting transfer order to Finland. Transfer not effected. In light of S.I. No. 178 of 2021 which gives effect to decision C-385/19, appellant entitled to access the labour market. (This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending resolution before Court of Justice. Appellant was granted a Stamp 4 in July 2020- decision issued so as to finalise challenge while not impacting on appellant). |
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 20 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. Transfer to UK effected in 2020 under Dublin Regs. |
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19.. Appellant transferred to the United Kingdom in July 2020, no longer an applicant under 2018 Regs (as amended by S.I. No. 178 of 2021). |
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 19 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot]
|
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending resolution before Court of Justice. Appellant no longer required decision as granted labour market access in September 2020. IPAT felt obliged to deliver a decision. In light of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, appellant entitled to access labour market.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 18 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2020, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. Appellant no longer required decision as was granted and access to the labour market since November 2020. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 17 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2020, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. Appellant no longer required decision as was granted and access to the labour market since October 2020. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 16 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2020, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. Appellant no longer required decision as was granted and access to the labour market since November 2020. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 15 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2020, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. Appellant no longer required decision as was granted and access to the labour market since December 2020. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 14 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. The appellant had not been granted access to the labour market. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 13 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. The appellant had not been granted access to the labour market. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 12 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. The appellant had not been granted access to the labour market. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 11 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. The appellant had not been granted access to the labour market. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 10 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. The appellant had not been granted access to the labour market. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 9 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’- distinction no longer in force due to S.I. No. 178 of 2021.
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
This challenge was brought in 2020, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. Appellate had not been granted access to the labour market as the UK had been deemed the country responsible for progressing her application. Post the decision in C-385/19 and the coming into force of S.I. No. 178 of 2021, the appellant was entitled to a labour market access permission.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 8 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2020, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19. Appellant no longer required decision as was granted and access to the labour market since January 2021. IPAT felt obliged to deliver a decision, disapplied the 2018 Regulations and directly applied the 2013 Directive. Appellant had entitlement to access to the labour market.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 7 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19.. Appellant no longer required decision as granted a Stamp 4 and access to the Labour Market since February 2020. IPAT felt obliged to deliver a decision, disapplied the 2018 Regulations and directly applied the 2013 Directive. Appellant had entitlement to access to the labour market.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 6 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market. [Challenge Moot] |
This challenge was brought in 2019, paused pending decision of Court of Justice in C-385/19.. Appellant no longer required decision as granted labour market access in September 2020. IPAT felt obliged to deliver a decision, disapplied the 2018 Regulations and directly applied the 2013 Directive. Appellant had entitlement to access to the labour market.
|
| Somalia [2021] IPAT 5 RC | Reg. 11(4) and Art. 15- Access to the labour market, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32- – Attributable delay- failure to establish identity | IPAT was satisfied that there were questions regarding the authenticity of copies of submitted birth certificate and identity document. Failure to establish identity was cause of IPO delay and this was attributable to the appellant.
|
| Georgia [2021] IPAT 4 RC | Reg. 11(4) and Art. 15- Access to the labour market, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32- – Attributable delay
|
Appellant had failed to attend an IPO section 15 interview in September 2019, re-engaged with the IPO after 3 months and attended IPO interview in December 2019. Further delays occurred, and while cognisant of the pandemic, noted that the appellant had “an established pattern” of delaying his application. IPAT did note that the fact the appellant worked without legal permission for three weeks in December 2020 was not relevant to its decision.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2021] IPAT 3 RC | Reg. 11(4) and Art. 15, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32- Access to the labour market – Attributable delay
|
Appellant had not attended IPO interviews, had delayed return of questionnaire, and had not properly engaged with IPO even in light of the Covid-19 situation.
|
| Nigeria [2021] IPAT 2 RC | Reg. 11(4) and Art. 15, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32- Access to the labour market – Attributable delay
|
Appellant claimed to have been in Ireland since 2008. Protection application lodged in November 2019. Documentation deemed to be false was provided to the IPO. IPO delay is attributable to appellant.
|
| Zimbabwe [2021] IPAT 1 RC | Reg. 11(4) and Art. 15, interpreted in light of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32- Access to the labour market- Attributable delay
|
Appellant had access to the labour market in 2018, left Ireland, entered the United Kingdom. Initially detained, appellant was to return to Ireland. Appellant reengaged with IPO in December 2019 and due to Covid-19 Ireland decided not to return appellant to the United Kingdom. Delay in issuance of first instance decision attributed to the appellant and no entitlement to a labour market access permission.
|
2020
| Decision | Core Legal Provisions | Core Outcome
|
| Nationality Unknown [2020] IPAT 4 RC
|
Reg. 11 and Art. 15- Access to the labour market – Attributable delay
|
Appellant provided an incorrect name and further information to the International Protection Office (IPO) in a ‘drip feed manner’. Questions arose as to the date the IPO questionnaire was submitted. The decision maker held that the delay with the protection process was caused by the appellant. No entitlement to enter the labour market.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2020] IPAT 3 RC
|
Reg. 11 and Art. 15- Access to the labour market- time
|
First instance protection decision issued to the appellant within 9 months. No issue of interpretation of EU law arises that would benefit from a referral to the CJEU. The Regulations and Directive clearly provide that while Ireland could grant permission to enter the labour market before this 9 month period, there is no obligation to do so. Only where an appellant had not been issued with a first instance decision within 9 months, does an appellant continue to enjoy access to the labour market during the protection status appeal.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2020] IPAT 2 RC | Reg. 11 and Art. 15- Access to the labour market – Attributable delay
|
Appellant was responsible for the 2 and a half year delay in submitting protection application. Could not benefit from access to the labour market due to this delay.
|
| Nationality Unknown [2020] IPAT 1 RC | Reg. 11 and Art. 15- Access to the labour market- time
|
Some errors in the Review Officer’s determination. This did not impact on the appellant’s legal rights- a first instance decision was issued on the final day of the 9 month period. No entitlement to enter the labour market. |
2019
| Decision | Core Legal Provisions | Core Outcome
|
| Georgia [2019] IPAT 9 RC | Reg. 11 & Art. 15- Access to Labour Market | First instance decision delivered within 9 months. Reg. 11 does not apply.
|
| Afghanistan [2019] IPAT 8 RC | Reg. 21- Jurisdiction of IPAT | No jurisdiction to determine due to lack of Review Officer decision.
|
| Iraq [2019] IPAT 7 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market |
Second IPAT reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union as regards concept of ‘attributable delay’ for persons subject to an unexecuted Dublin transfer. Includes question on extent a person subject to a Dublin Transfer may access the labour market See now decision of Court of Justice of the European Union, C-385/19. This decision confirms that persons with an unexecuted Dublin transfer may access the labour market if satisfying other conditions of access under the 2018 Regs/2013 Recast Directive.
Given effect by S.I. No. 178 of 2021..
|
| Malawi [2019] IPAT 6 RC | Reg. 11 & Art. 15- Access to Labour Market | Appellant had applied for protection on 11 December 2018. By 12 April 2019, appellant could not meet the nine-month requirement for access to the labour market within the 2018 Regs.
|
| Morocco [2019] IPAT 5 RC | Reg. 11 & Art. 15- Access to the Labour Market | Appellant received a first instance decision within nine months, therefore could not benefit from Reg. 11 of the 2018 Regulations.
|
| Unknown Nationality [2019] IPAT 4 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market |
First IPAT reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Tribunal Member disagreed with ‘proposed responses’ of Humphreys J. in K.S. (Pakistan). Key question is whether a person otherwise meeting conditions for access to the labour market, but subject to an unexecuted Dublin transfer, should be granted access to the labour market. See, C-385/19.
Given effect by S.I. No. 178 of 2021..
|
| Albania [2019] IPAT 3 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market |
The 2018 Regulations fail to properly transpose the 2013 Reception Directive Recast. European Union law directly applied. An individual who is waiting nine-months for an initial decision on their protection claim is entitled to access the labour market. This includes persons subject to an unexecuted Dublin transfer order.
See now, See, C-385/19. Given effect by S.I. No. 178 of 2021.. |
| Egypt [2019] IPAT 2 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market |
Appellant transferred pursuant to a Dublin transfer order. As he was no longer in Ireland, then issues of access to the labour market no longer were relevant.
Appellant’s legal team failed to disclose the removal to the Tribunal Member. The Tribunal Member noted that she took “such a lack of disclosure of material facts very seriously”.
|
| Bangladesh [2019] IPAT 1 RC | Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market | A person who had been waiting a determination of a first instance decision for over nine months, prior to the commencement of the 2018 Regulations (and was not awaiting IPAT appeal)- did not have an entitlement to access the labour market. This Tribunal Member explicitly overruled her decision in Georgia [2018] IPAT 12 RC.
|
2018
| Decision
|
Core Legal Provisions | Core Outcome |
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market |
The 2018 Regulations on access to the labour market, and definition of who is entitled to access the labour market were disapplied by the Tribunal Member. This was done due to a (then) recent EU decision that Tribunals (as well as Courts) are empowered to disapply measures of national law which conflict with EU legal obligations. There is no requirement for Tribunals to await a court disapplication of the offending legal provision. The Tribunal Member, referring to case-law, stated that there is only one type of ‘asylum applicant’. Persons subject to an unexecuted Dublin transfer, will be entitled to access the labour market within nine months of arrival in Ireland.
However, see now: Unknown Nationality [2019] IPAT 4 RC and Iraq [2019] IPAT 7 RC, as well as High Court decision in K.S. (Pakistan). See now, decision of Court of Justice of the European Union, C-385/19. This decision confirms that persons with an unexecuted Dublin transfer may access the labour market if satisfying other conditions of access under the 2018 Regs/2013 Recast Directive.
|
| Bangladesh [2018] IPAT 20 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market |
Pre, Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC: Tribunal stated that only the Irish superior courts could disapply an offending national provision of law. This case (and other cases below) all dealt with the rights of persons subject to non-executed Dublin transfers, and their entitlement or otherwise to enter the labour market. The Tribunal Member seemed to indicate that Irish law did not comply with EU law. Below, these cases will just be identified as a ‘Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision’. See now, , C-385/19.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 19 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 18 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 17 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 16 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Nigeria/Biafra [2018] IPAT 15 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
The Tribunal Member seemed to reject arguments, that were ultimately accepted as regards potential clash of interpretations between EU law and Irish law on access to the labour market for protection applicants.
|
| Algeria [2018] IPAT 14 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Iraq [2018] IPAT 13 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Georgia [2018] IPAT 12 RC | Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
The appellant had waited over nine months for a first instance decision, which issued on 04 May 2018. This was almost two months prior to the 2018 Regulations coming into force. The Tribunal Member determined that the appellant had met the nine-month requirement under Art. 11/Reg. 12.
In essence overruled by Bangladesh [2019] IPAT 1 RC. |
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 11 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Libya [2018] IPAT 10 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Bangladesh [2018] IPAT 9 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
This is the second appellant in the High Court action, K.S. (Pakistan).
|
| Albania [2018] IPAT 8 RC | Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
Appellant applied for international protection on 23 October 2017, and International Protection Office rejection was issued on 08 August 2018.
Overturning review officer’s decision, the Tribunal Member held that the appellant had satisfied the nine month requirement. The Tribunal Member noted that the decision did not issue until post the commencement of the 2018 Regulations.
It is likely that this decision stands, even in light of Bangladesh [2019] IPAT 1 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 7 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Bangladesh [2018] IPAT 6 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 5 | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 4 | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Bangladesh [2018] IPAT 3 | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Pakistan [2018] IPAT 2 RC | Reg. 2 & Art. 2- Definition of ‘applicant’ and ‘recipient’
Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
A Dublin Transfer & Labour Market decision, pre Pakistan [2018] IPAT 21 RC.
|
| Malawi [2019] IPAT 1 RC | Reg 11 & Art. 15- access to the labour market.
|
Appellant deemed not to have a right to enter the labour market, as had Office of the Refugee Application Commissioner negative first instance decision within 9 months. (N.B. appellant, at time of this decision, was still awaiting a determination of her protection claim before IPAT).
|
