An accelerated procedure for dealing with "manifestly unfounded" applications for refugee status was put in place in the Republic because such claims were causing delays for genuine applicants, the State has argued before the High Court.
Mr Frank Callanan SC, for the State, was defending the procedures which ultimately led to the refusal of a Russian national's claim for refugee status.
Mr Valeri Zgnat'ev (52), with an address at Phibsboro, Dublin, has applied to Mr Justice Finnegan for leave to legally challenge the decision of the Minister for Justice, upheld by the Refugee Appeals Authority, refusing his application for refugee status.
Mr Zgnat'ev's application for leave is the first to be heard under the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000.
Mr Zgnat'ev arrived in Ireland in 1999 from South Africa. He says he fears persecution if returned to Russia because of his Jewish background, his military service in Chechnya and his political views arising from his Russian Communist Party membership from 1976 to 1989.
In June his application was deemed to be "manifestly unfounded", and this meant his application was then determined under an accelerated procedure detailed in the Hope Hanlan letter (of December 1997) setting out the Department of Justice's procedures for dealing with applications for refugee status.
He claims that, because he was dealt with under the accelerated procedure, his opportunity to fully present his case and/or appeal the decisions were profoundly restricted.
In court yesterday Mr Callanan opposed the application for leave to challenge the refusal of refugee status to Mr Zgnat'ev. He said there was a background in international practice for the "manifestly unfounded" procedures.
He said Mr Zgnat'ev's case had been put in a way which might give a false impression that Mr Zgnat'ev had been denied a uniform procedure in relation to the handling of his application for refugee status. He said the impression had been given that a pre-emptive decision had been taken in Mr Zgnat'ev's case. This was wrong, and he had had the benefit of appeals.
The contest over refugee status was a fact of life in Europe, and applicants had to be aware they were likely to be contested and would have to furnish full information in support of their claims. It seemed inconceivable that Mr Zgnat'ev was unaware of this.
Mr Callanan contended that Mr Zgnat'ev had not advanced any evidence to support his claim of a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Russia. To be subject to humiliation because he was Jewish on his mother's side was not persecution.
Mr Zgnat'ev had also argued that he would face criminal charges for surrendering weapons to rebels in Chechnya, but this also was not persecution and neither was his unsupported claim that he would be subject to attacks because of his past membership of the communist party.
The case continues.