Ireland, European Court of Justice (First Chamber), X v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others, C-756/21, 29 June 2023

Facts:

The applicant, a Pakistani national, applied for asylum in Ireland in July 2015 after experiencing a traumatic terrorist attack, claiming ongoing mental health issues and fear of return; his application, initially based on a false statement later withdrawn, was ultimately rejected at all administrative levels following delays linked to legislative changes. Before the High Court, he challenged the refusal on the grounds that the authorities relied on outdated country of origin information, failed to obtain relevant medico-legal evidence despite indications of mental health problems, and wrongly assessed his credibility. The High Court, noting these concerns and the significant procedural delays, referred questions to the CJEU on the scope of the duty of cooperation, the legal consequences of unreasonable delays, and whether a single retracted false statement can, by itself, justify a negative credibility finding.

Decision & reasoning:

Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/83

The Court noted that while the applicant must submit elements to sustain their claim, the Member State has a duty to actively cooperate to assess these elements. This requires an "appropriate examination" where decisions are based on all relevant facts about the applicant's country oforigin and personal circumstances. Furthermore, EU law does not restrict the use of expert reports, therefore, a medico-legal report can be used if it is necessary or relevant to assess the applicant's genuine need for protection. (para. 49-61)

The Court ruled that the finding of a breach of the duty of cooperation during the judicial scrutiny of a decision issued on appeal against a first-instance decision does not necessarily require, by itself, the annulment of the impugned decision. The Court observed that EU law (Directive 2005/85) only guarantees a single judicial remedy and does not explicitly rule second-level appeal procedures. Therefore, national law may lawfully require the applicant to demonstrate that the decision dismissing the appeal might have been different in the absence of that breach. (para. 62-72)

Article 23(2) and Article 39(4) of Directive 2005/85: Reasonable Period of Time

The Court reasoned that "reasonableness" of the time taken must be evaluated based on the specific circumstances of each case. However, Member States cannot excuse delays by pointing to circumstances under their own responsibility, such as internal legislative amendments. Despite this, the Court reasoned that simply taking an unreasonable amount of time does not automatically invalidate a decision based on substantive criteria. An annulment is only justified if there are indications that the excessive duration affected the outcome of the dispute. (para 79 -81)

Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83: General Credibility of the Applicant

Under Article 4(5), if an applicant's statements are not supported by documentary evidence, they do not need confirmation if several conditions are met, one of which is that the applicant's "general credibility" has been established. The Court noted that a false statement in the initial application is a relevant factor when assessing credibility. However, the assessment must be an individual evaluation. The fact that an applicant explained and withdrew their untruthful statement at the first available opportunity, the new claims made, and the applicant's subsequent behaviour are all equally relevant factors that must be weighed. (para 95)

Outcome:

1.      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that:

–       the duty of cooperation laid down in that provision requires the determining authority to obtain (i) up-to-date information concerning all the relevant facts as regards the general situation prevailing in the country of origin of an applicant for asylum and international protection and (ii) a medico-legal report on his or her mental health, where there is evidence of mental health problems resulting potentially from atraumatic event which occurred in that country of origin and the use of such a report is necessary or relevant in order to assess the applicant’s genuine need for international protection, provided that the modalities of the use of such a report comply, inter alia, with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

–       the finding – in the context of a second level of judicial scrutiny provided for by national law – of a breach of the duty of cooperation laid down in that provision need not necessarily entail, by itself, the annulment of the decision dismissing an appeal brought against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, since the applicant for international protection may be required to demonstrate that the decision dismissing the appeal might have been different in the absence of that breach.

2. EU law, in particular Article 23(2) and Article 39(4) of Council Directive2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, must be interpreted as meaning that:

- the periods which have elapsed between, on the one hand, the lodging of the application for asylum and, on the other, the adoption of the decisions of the determining authority and of the competent court or tribunal of first instance, cannot be justified by national legislative amendments made during those periods, and

- the unreasonableness of one or other of those periods cannot, by itself and in the absence of any evidence that the excessive duration of the administrative or judicial proceedings affected the outcome of the dispute, justify setting aside the decision of the competent court or tribunal of first instance.

3. Article 4(5)(e) of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that a false statement, contained in the initial application for international protection, which was explained and withdrawn by the applicant for asylum at the first available opportunity, is not capable, by itself, of preventing the establishment of the applicant’s general credibility, for the purposes of that provision.

Subsequent proceedings:

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.