Author
General
Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2024
| Outgoing procedure | Incoming procedure | ||||||
| Requests | Accepted | Requests | Accepted | ||||
| Total | Total | ||||||
| Take charge | 21 | 14 | Take charge | 39 | 14 | ||
| Austria | – | – | Austria | 6 | 3 | ||
| Belgium | – | – | Belgium | 2 | – | ||
| Bulgaria | – | – | Bulgaria | – | – | ||
| Croatia | 1 | – | Croatia | – | – | ||
| Czech Republic | – | – | Czech Republic | – | – | ||
| Cyprus | – | – | Cyprus | 6 | 3 | ||
| Estonia | – | – | Estonia | – | – | ||
| Finland | – | – | Finland | – | – | ||
| Denmark | – | – | Denmark | – | – | ||
| France | – | – | France | – | – | ||
| Germany | 1 | – | Germany | 8 | 3 | ||
| Greece | – | – | Greece | 7 | 4 | ||
| Hungary | – | – | Hungary | 1 | – | ||
| Italy | 14 | 12 | Italy | – | – | ||
| Iceland | – | – | Iceland | 1 | 1 | ||
| Latvia | – | – | Latvia | – | – | ||
| Lichtenstein | – | – | Lichtenstein | – | – | ||
| Lithuania | – | – | Lithuania | – | – | ||
| Luxemburg | – | – | Luxemburg | 1 | – | ||
| Malta | – | – | Malta | – | – | ||
| Norway | – | – | Norway | 2 | – | ||
| Poland | 1 | – | Poland | – | – | ||
| Portugal | – | – | Portugal | – | – | ||
| Romania | 1 | – | Romania | – | – | ||
| Slovak Republic | – | – | Slovak Republic | – | – | ||
| Slovenia | – | – | Slovenia | – | – | ||
| Spain | 3 | 2 | Spain | 1 | – | ||
| Sweden | – | – | Sweden | – | – | ||
| Switzerland | – | – | Switzerland | 1 | – | ||
| The Netherlands | – | – | The Netherlands | 3 | – | ||
| Total | Total | ||||||
| Take back | 1, 243 | 325 | Take back | 53 | 15 | ||
| Austria | 103 | 24 | Austria | 2 | – | ||
| Belgium | 63 | 33 | Belgium | 4 | – | ||
| Bulgaria | 59 | 5 | Bulgaria | – | – | ||
| Czech Republic | – | – | Czech Republic | – | – | ||
| Croatia | 49 | 27 | Croatia | – | – | ||
| Cyprus | 11 | – | Cyprus | – | – | ||
| Denmark | 8 | – | Denmark | 1 | 1 | ||
| Estonia | – | – | Estonia | – | – | ||
| Finland | 15 | 8 | Finland | – | – | ||
| France | 179 | 58 | France | 13 | 2 | ||
| Germany | 147 | 39 | Germany | 14 | 4 | ||
| Greece | 235 | 1 | Greece | – | – | ||
| Hungary | 8 | – | Hungary | – | – | ||
| Iceland | 10 | 5 | Iceland | – | – | ||
| Italy | 79 | 21 | Italy | 2 | – | ||
| Latvia | 3 | – | Latvia | – | – | ||
| Lichtenstein | – | – | Lichtenstein | – | – | ||
| Lithuania | 1 | 1 | Lithuania | – | – | ||
| Luxemburg | 3 | 1 | Luxemburg | – | – | ||
| Malta | 6 | 1 | Malta | – | – | ||
| Norway | 6 | – | Norway | 3 | 2 | ||
| Poland | 13 | 6 | Poland | – | – | ||
| Portugal | 7 | 2 | Portugal | 2 | – | ||
| Romania | 38 | – | Romania | – | – | ||
| Slovenia | 3 | – | Slovenia | 1 | 1 | ||
| Slovak Republic | 1 | – | Slovak Republic | – | – | ||
| Spain | 68 | 21 | Spain | – | – | ||
| Sweden | 70 | 51 | Sweden | – | – | ||
| Switzerland | 20 | 5 | Switzerland | 4 | 3 | ||
| The Netherlands | 38 | 16 | The Netherlands | 7 | 2 | ||
Source: International Protection Office, March 2025.
Three outgoing transfers were effectively implemented pursuant to a transfer order, while nine incoming transfers were effectively implemented pursuant to a transfer order.[1]
| Outgoing Dublin requests by criterion: 2024 | ||
| Dublin III Regulation criterion | Requests sent | Requests accepted |
| “Take charge”: Articles 8 to 17: | 21 | 14 |
| Article 8 (minors) | – | – |
| Article 9 (family members granted protection) | – | – |
| Article 10 (family members pending determination) | – | – |
| Article 11 (family procedure) | 1 | – |
| Article 12(2) (visas and residence permits) | 1 | |
| Article 13 (entry and/or remain) | 18 | 14 |
| Article 14 (visa free entry) | – | – |
| “Take charge”: Article 16 | – | – |
| “Take charge” humanitarian clause: Article 17(2) | – | – |
| “Take charge” (application made in another Member State) | 1 | – |
| “Take back”: Article 18 and 20(5) | 1, 243 | 325 |
| Art 12(1) (residence permits) | 1 | 1 |
| Article 18 (1) (b) | 1, 243 | 127 |
| Article 18 (1) (c) | – | 15 |
| Article 18 (1) (d) | – | 157 |
| Article 20(5) | – | 25 |
| Incoming Dublin requests by criterion: 2024 | ||
| Dublin III Regulation criterion | Requests received | Requests accepted |
| “Take charge”: Articles 8 to 17 | 39 | 13 |
| Article 8 (minors) | 16 | 6 |
| Article 9 (family members granted protection) | 2 | 1 |
| Article 10 (family members pending determination) | 3 | – |
| Article 11 (family procedure) | – | – |
| Article 12 (visas and residence permits) | 10 | 3 |
| Article 13 (entry and/or remain) | 2 | – |
| Article 14 (visa free entry) | – | – |
| “Take charge”: Article 16 | – | – |
| “Take charge” humanitarian clause: Article 17(2) | 6 | 3 |
| “Take back”: Articles 18 and 20(5) | 53 | 1 |
| Article 18 (1) (b) | 53 | – |
| Article 18 (1) (c) | – | – |
| Article 18 (1) (d) | – | 1 |
| Article 20(5) | – | – |
Source: International Protection Office, March 2025.
The Dublin Regulation is implemented by the Dublin Unit of the IPO. The unit is responsible for determining whether applicants should be transferred to another State or have their application assessed in Ireland. The unit also responds to requests from other Member States to transfer applicants to Ireland. The Arrangements Unit of the Immigration Service Delivery is responsible for handling outgoing transfers under the Dublin Regulation.
The European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 62 of 2018) were adopted in 2018 and govern the regulation of the Dublin procedure in Ireland.
Application of the Dublin criteria
Family provisions: Information regarding how the family unity criteria (Articles 8-11), as well as the evidential requirements, are applied in practice was not available at the time of updating in January 2025.
Frequently used criteria: The most frequently invoked criterion with regard to outgoing ‘take charge’ requests was Article 13, entry and/or stay in another member state. A total of 59 requests were made pursuant to this criterion. With regard to outgoing ‘take back’ requests, the most frequently invoked criterion was Article 18(1)(b), whereby an applicant has made an application for international protection in another member state. A total of 521 requests were made pursuant to this criterion.[2]
The most frequently invoked criterion with regard to incoming ‘take charge’ requests was Article 12, whereby another Member State has issued a visa or residence document to the applicant. A total of 12 requests were made pursuant to this criterion. With regard to incoming ‘take back’ requests, Article 18(1)(b) was the most the most frequently invoked criterion. A total of 37 requests were made pursuant to this criterion.[3]
Rejection of outgoing requests: Of the 1,264 outgoing requests made, 925 such requests were rejected in 2024.[4] The reasons for rejection, however, were unclear at the time of updating in March 2025.
The discretionary clauses
The criteria followed by the authorities in applying the Article 17(1) and Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation is unclear in practice.
Procedure
As part of the general application procedure, all applicants are photographed and fingerprinted (with the exception of applicants believed by the relevant officer to be under the age of 14 years old and not accompanied by a parent or guardian) during their initial interview with the IPO (see section on Registration). As part of the process applicants and dependent children are required to have photographs taken. They are also required to have their and their dependent children’s fingerprints taken. Fingerprints may be disclosed in confidence to the relevant Irish authorities and to asylum authorities of other countries which may have responsibility for considering the application under the Dublin Regulation.
Section 19 IPA sets out the procedure for members of the Garda Síochána or immigration officers to take fingerprints for the purposes of (a) establishing the identity of a person for any purpose concerned with the implementation of the IPA, and (b) checking whether the person has previously lodged an application for international protection in another Member State.[6] Where a person refuses to provide their fingerprints, they shall be deemed not to have made reasonable efforts to establish their identity and shall be deemed to have failed to fulfil their obligation to cooperate with the application process.[7] The IPA does not legislatively provide for the use of force to take fingerprints, however, as not volunteering to provide fingerprints is viewed as a failure to make reasonable efforts to establish one’s identity (in line with Section 20(1) IPA setting out grounds for detention), applicants who refuse to be fingerprinted may be detained. Additionally, negative credibility findings may be made against applicants in circumstances whereby their identity may not be accepted and the persons may not be recognised as a refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection.[8]
In relation to specific guarantees for children in the Dublin procedure, the IPO is required under Regulation 3(b) of the European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2018 to consult with Tusla, the Irish Child and Family Agency, on the best interests of the child particularly with respect to the child’s well-being and social development and the views of the child. No information is available on the practice under the new single procedure.
Following the implementation of measures to restrict the spread of COVID-19, transfers under the regulation continued, albeit at lower numbers. These transfers occurred notwithstanding a stay being placed on the vast majority of deportations for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government justified the continuation of transfers on the basis that no deportation order is made in respect of Dublin III cases and the individual concerned is not returned to their country of origin.[9]
Individualised guarantees
It was not clear at the time of updating whether individualised guarantees were sought by the
authorities prior to transfers taking place.
Transfers
Of the 339 outgoing transfer requests which were accepted in 2024, 8 transfers were effectively implemented. One individual was transferred, to France, one to Switzerland, three to Germany, one to Belgium and two to Spain. The average duration of the Dublin procedure from the time the outgoing request was issued until the applicant wase transferred was 314 days.[10]
Personal interview
At any time during the initial asylum process, the IPO may determine that a person is subject to the Dublin III Regulation and hold a separate personal interview where necessary to conduct the Dublin procedure.[11]
Limited information is available on how Dublin procedure interviews are conducted in practice, but applicants are provided with the common information leaflet stating that they are in the Dublin procedure. However, it is not always clear that the asylum applicant understands that they are having a specific Dublin procedure interview. Anecdotal evidence continues to suggest that Dublin procedure interviews are presented merely as an interview just asking questions about the person’s journey to Ireland without fully explaining the implications in terms of which country is responsible for the person’s asylum application and that it means that the person may be transferred there.[12] The onus is placed on the asylum applicant to be able to read the Dublin information leaflet rather than ensuring that it is properly explained by the caseworker and not the interpreter at the Dublin personal interview. [13]
Appeal
The appeal against a transfer decision must be lodged within 10 working days and has suspensive effect.[14]
The IPAT shall have regard to both the facts and law when considering appeals under the Dublin III Regulation. This is in accordance with Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation which requires that a person shall have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or a review, in fact and in law, against a transfer decision, before a Court or Tribunal.
If the IPAT overturns the decision of the IPO, the applicant and their legal representative and the Commissioner and Minister are notified in writing. The IPAT may either affirm or set aside the transfer decision. When submitting a Dublin appeal to the IPAT, the person concerned can request that an oral hearing is conducted and the Tribunal may additionally hold an oral hearing even if the person concerned has not requested it if the IPAT is of the opinion that it is in the interests of justice to do so. No information is available on the current practice as the Irish system recently changed under the IPA.
There is no onward appeal of an IPAT decision on the Dublin Regulation. However, judicial review of the decision could be sought.
There has been a long running issue over the remit of the IPAT’s appeal and whether they can apply the sovereignty clause under Article 17 themselves. In November 2017, the High Court referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the application of the Dublin Regulation including on the issue of application of Article 17.
Some of the questions referred included: whether the words “determining Member State” in the Dublin III Regulation includes a state exercising an Article 17 function and whether the functions of a Member State under Article 6 (best interests of the child) include the discretion under Article 17 not to transfer. The CJEU delivered its ruling in January 2019 and stated that Member States are free to entrust to different authorities the task of applying the criteria defined by that Regulation relating to the determination of the Member State responsible and the task of applying the discretionary clause set out in that Regulation.[15] The Court of Appeal considered this issue in the case N.V.U & Ors -v- The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors.[16] Justice Baker stated – in a judgment delivered in June 2019 – that she was not persuaded by the arguments made by the Irish Government, namely that a departure from the plain meaning of the Irish Regulations of 2014 was justified or that the authority to exercise discretion as to whether to assume jurisdiction pursuant to Art 17(1) may be exercised by the determining body, now the IPO and IPAT.
This decision was subsequently appealed by the State to the Irish Supreme Court. In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2020, Justice Charleton held that the discretionary power established pursuant to Article 17 had not been vested in the International Protection Office and in turn, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, by virtue of Regulation 3(1) (a) of the EU (Dublin System) Regulations 2014. Consequently, it is now evident that the Minister for Justice retains sole discretion in considering the transfer of applications pursuant to Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation.[17]
Following the ruling, the precise position regarding the procedure for making an appeal pursuant to Article 17 remains ambiguous. In this regard, the practice of the Irish Refugee Council Independent Law Centre has been to make ad-hoc submissions on behalf of clients directly to the Minister for Justice.
In January 2021, following engagement with the Department of Justice, the Dublin Transfer Unit has indicated in correspondence with the Irish Refugee Council that the Minister for Justice is currently in the process of establishing a procedure to deal with applications pursuant to Article 17. It is understood that. as of March 2022, a specific division within the Dublin III unit was established in order to examine applications pursuant to Article 17, however, information on the exact process and procedures followed by the division in determining such applications are not clear. This remained the case as of February 2024.
In February 2024, giving judgment in the case of AC v. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors, a case concerning the proposed return of an applicant to Spain pursuant to the Dublin III, Hyland J. noted that despite the large amount of litigation which Article 17 had generated, and the judicial observations made regarding the lack of any appeals procedure, it appeared that the position had not altered. It remained the case, according to the Judge, that no guidelines existed for applicants as to when they ought to make a request pursuant to Art 17, how to make such a request, the criteria to be considered in determining such a request, or the timeframe in which such a request ought to be decided. The judge further noted that ‘given that there is a bifurcated system, it is surprising that the Minister has not identified how the two systems should operate in harmony to avoid undermining the aims of the Dublin III Regulation insofar as transfers are concerned.’[18]
Legal assistance
An applicant who is subject to the Dublin Regulation may access legal information through the Legal Aid Board. Technically this is not completely free legal representation as there is a small amount (€10) to be paid. The Legal Aid Board has also issued guidance on the role of Private Practitioners on their panel as regards legal advice, which shows that it also applies in the context of the Dublin procedure.[19] This assistance also applies to the appeal where legal representation is available. There are no reported differences in the quality of service provided between the Dublin procedure and the regular procedure (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).
Suspension of transfers
There is no blanket suspension of transfers to any Member State in either law or policy.
Transfers to Greece were suspended following the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece in 2011.[20] In response to a Parliamentary Question from February 2017 enquiring whether the Department of Justice was intending to implement the 2016 European Commission proposal that States gradually resume transfers to Greece, previous Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald stated that “No transfers of unaccompanied minors are foreseen for the time being. The resumption of transfers is not to be applied retroactively and will only apply to applicants who have entered Greece irregularly from 15 March 2017 onwards or for whom Greece is responsible from this date under the Dublin Regulation criteria.”[21]
In 2022, in response to a request by the Irish Refugee Council, the IPO indicated that there were 2 “take charge” requests and 137 “take back” requests to Greece. However, of the two outgoing transfers effectively implemented, neither were to Greece.[22] In 2023, the IPO indicated that there were 3 outgoing ‘take charge’ requests and 62 “take back” requests, however, of the three transfers effectively implemented, none were to Greece.[23] In 2024, the IPO indicated that there were 235 outgoing “take back” requests made to Greece. One such request was accepted but the transfer was not effectively implemented in practice.[24]
In August 2021, in response to the emerging humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, the Department of Justice announced that Afghan nationals facing transfers to other EU countries pursuant to the Dublin III procedure would have their applications for international protection examined in Ireland on compassionate grounds.[25] However, the extent to which this applied, or continues to apply in practice, remains unclear as of May 2025, as data regarding the nationalities of those subject to the Dublin procedure is not readily accessible.
Following Italy’s announcement that it will suspend acceptance of incoming Dublin III transfers, the State continued to send such requests. In 2024, 93 such requests were made, 33 requests were accepted by Italy, however, no transfers to Italy were effectively implemented.[26]
The situation of Dublin returnees
In response to a request by the Irish Refugee Council, the IPO indicated that they comply with the provisions of Article 31 (Exchange of relevant information before a transfer is carried out) and Article 32 (Exchange of health data before a transfer is carried out) of the Dublin Regulation in relation to incoming transfers.[27]
Irish law provides that Dublin returnees are permitted access to the accommodation system on the same basis as other international protection applicants, provided their application for international protection remains open before the IPO. It should be noted however, that due to the current lack of capacity within the IPAS accommodation system, single male applicants under 55 without identified vulnerabilities will not be offered accommodation on arrival in the state.[28] (see Reception conditions).
Whereby an individual has already received a final decision in respect of their protection application and seeks to make a subsequent protection application, they would be required to make an application to the Minister under Section 22 IPA (see section on Subsequent Applications). It is possible that the authorities could invoke Section 5 of the Immigration Act 2003 which states that a person whom an immigration officer or a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects has been unlawfully in the State for a continuous period of less than three months, be removed from Ireland, however, the extent to which this has occurred in practice is unknown.
[1] International Protection Office, April 2024.
[2] International Protection Office, April 2024.
[3] ibid.
[4] Information provided by IPO, March 2025.
[5] ibid.
[6] Section 19(1) IPA.
[7] Section 19(4) IPA.
[8] Information provided by Irish Refugee Council Independent Law Centre.
[9] RTÉ News, ‘Concerns over rise in deportations to UK ahead of Brexit’, 18 December 2020, available: here.
[10] International Protection Office, March 2025.
[11] Regulation 4 European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2018.
[12] Information provided by Irish Refugee Council Information and Advocacy Service, January 2024.
[13] ibid.
[14] Regulations 6 and 8 European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2018.
[15] C‑661/17, M.A., S.A., and Z.A. v Ireland, Judgment of 23 January 2019, available: here.
[16] N.V.U & Ors -v- The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors, Judgment of 26 June 2019, available: here.
[17] N.V.U & Ors -v- The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2020] IESC 46, available: here.
[18] AC v. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2024] IEHC 77, 12 February 2024, available: here.
[19] See further Legal Aid Board, Best practice guidelines, February 2017.
[20] M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011, available: here.
[21] Response to Parliamentary Question 155, 28 February 2017, available: here.
[22] International Protection Office, March 2023: Of the 2 transfers that took place, 1 was to Belgium and 1 was to Sweden.
[23] International Protection Office, March 2024: Of the 3 transfers that took place, 1 was to Germany, 1 was to Italy and one was to Switzerland.
[24] International Protection Office, March 2025.
[25] RTÉ, Department of Justice to prioritise international protection applications from Afghan Nationals, 18 August 2021, available: here.
[26] International Protection Office, March 2025.
[27] Information provided by IPO, August 2017.
[28] Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, ‘Statistics on International Protection Applicants not offered accommodation’, 12th December 2023, available: here.