Reception Conditions Decisions Database

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

 

%d bloggers like this: