QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HAEDARE||Claimant|
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr M Kellar (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"There is a further difficulty for the claimant which would also mean that the case for the claimant is doomed to failure and that is because the allocation of responsibility between member states under the Dublin regulations cannot be challenged by an individual save on human rights grounds and perhaps on the basis of irrationality, neither of which are relevant to the present case. The matter was made clear by Laws LJ, who said when giving the only substantive judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1550:
'I certainly accept in general terms that an asylum claimant cannot challenge (save perhaps on human rights grounds) the allocation of responsibility between States for the determination of his claim where that has been effected by proper application of Dublin I or II.'"
Silber J went on in paragraph 36:
"For the purpose of completeness I should point out that further support for this view can be found in Mota v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006 EWCA Civ1380] because Pill LJ (with whom Moses LJ agreed) refused permission to appeal against a decision to the effect that.
'once there had been acceptance of the transfer application the applicant is not entitled to challenge the transfer. The judge found that the regulations confer no rights upon individuals to challenge decisions between states not withstanding that the regulations are directly applicable in the member states'"
In Nasseri at paragraph 44, Lord Hoffmann concluded:
"But the Secretary of State is not concerned with Greek law. Like the operation of the Greek system for processing asylum applications and the conditions under which asylum seekers are kept, that is a Greek problem. The Secretary of State is concerned only with whether in practice there is a real risk that a migrant returned to Greece will be sent to a country where he will suffer inhuman or degrading treatment. I agree with Laws LJ that there is no evidence of such a risk and would therefore dismiss the appeal."