AAH & MAH v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 699
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:06 Dec 2024
Judge:Phelan, S.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Beneficiary of international protection, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/71642df7-af13-4ef1-a0f3-fae0d554ceb0/d1c6f144-78fd-477a-97f1-70266ae13bbf/2024_IEHC_699.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicants were both Somali nationals who had been granted international protection in Greece and subsequently travelled to Ireland and applied for international protection in the State. Their applications were deemed inadmissible under section 21(9), International Protection Act 2015. The applicants contested the inadmissibility recommendations on the grounds that conditions in Greece are such that they result in destitution, … Read More

Principles:The principle of mutual trust means a presumption that beneficiaries of international protection will be treated in accordance with the Charter, the ECHR and international human rights law in all EU Member States. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to rebut this presumption and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be of a particularly high severity to prevent return. The assessment by the decision-maker must be individualised, save for where there is a situation such as armed conflict or a humanitarian disaster. Interviews conducted as part of the sections 13 and 15 processes are sufficient in meeting the requirement for an oral stage.
Go Back

AM v Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 660
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:20 Nov 2024
Judge:O’Donnell B.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Employer, Employment, Equal Treatment (Principle of), Labour market access, Reception Conditions (Material)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bb0aaab1-149e-4eb8-952d-578c4d6b3267/2024_IEHC_660.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an international protection applicant in Ireland with a professional background in pharmacy and healthcare management. The applicant applied for and was granted a labour market access permission. Under Regulation 11(9)(a) of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018, international protection applicants are not permitted to enter employment in the public sector. The applicant alleged that this … Read More

Principles:The restriction on access to employment in the public sector for international protection applicants is sufficiently justified and proportionate to the public interest.
Go Back

LK v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:LK
Judgment Date/s:09 Oct 2024
Judge:Dunne, Charleton, Woulfe S., Hogan, G., Murray
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant (Examination of an), Employment, Labour market access, Protection (International), Reception Conditions
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/aaa6ed66-ae2f-4618-930a-ad4dcad8bb11/2024_IESC_42_.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: LK applied for international protection in Ireland in September 2019. A preliminary interview was scheduled two weeks after he applied for international protection, but he did not receive written notification of this date and was never contacted personally. Through his social worker, an interview was arranged for LK for 12 December 2019. He received a questionnaire, for which he … Read More

Principles:The insertion of delay “attributed in part” as a condition for refusing to grant a labour market access permission does not feature in the Directive. It is not acte clair that the condition is in compliance with EU law and therefore a preliminary reference was sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Go Back

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & anor

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 493
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review (section 41, Irish Human Rights and Equality Act 2014)
Judgment Date/s:01 Aug 2024
Judge:O’Donnell, B
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Accommodation Centre, Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Homelessness, Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material), Vulnerable person
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/173c9396-0529-4a34-9281-fd4441e5c1e6/2024_IEHC_493.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & ors [2023] IEHC 187

Facts: This case concerned difficulties faced by the State in providing accommodation to certain single male applicants for international protection in the period between late 2023 and May 2024. As the State was unable to provide accommodation, it sought to provide for the basic needs of applicants through an increased daily expenses allowance of 75 euros, and through the provision … Read More

Principles:Applicants for international protection have a well-established fundamental right to human dignity, including by being provided with an adequate standard of living that guarantees their subsistence and protects their physical and mental health where they do not have sufficient means to provide for themselves. A failure to provide for the basic needs of applicants was found to amount to a breach of their right to human dignity.
Go Back

S.A. (Zimbabwe and South Africa) v the Chief International Protection Officer & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Chief International Protection Officer, the Minister for Justice and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 477
Judgment Date/s:04 Jul 2024
Judge:Gearty, M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Country of Birth, Country of Nationality, Country of Origin, Country of Origin (Safe), Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Representative
Country of Origin:Zimbabwe, South Africa
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/13442135-40a9-4b2f-8fd9-5282947d2db3/2024_IEHC_477.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant came to Ireland from South Africa and submitted an application for international protection. This application was refused on the basis that she was from South Africa and she could return there safely. The IPO made a preliminary decision on her nationality being South African based on her answers to the questionnaire, which she completed three days after … Read More

Principles:Where an applicant for international protection has two sets of identity paper it is incumbent on the decision maker to assess the documents and to consider the explanation given by the applicant and give an accurate recitation of the underlying facts and documents.
Go Back

L.A. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend, A.A.) & ors v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, and the Attorney General
Court/s:Court of Appeal, High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IECA 133
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:29 May 2024
Judge:Power, A., Ní Raifeartaigh, Ú, Allen, S.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Child, Employment, Reception Conditions
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7fe7c809-1b10-427b-8734-a8c38d9f1e96/2024_IECA_133.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:NHV v Minister for Justice and Equality [2017]

Facts: The first applicant was a child, and the second and third applicants were his parents. His parents applied for international protection in Ireland before he was born. While their applications were being processed, they applied and obtained labour market access permissions. Their applications for international protection were refused before the child was born and their right of access to … Read More

Principles:Parents cannot derive a right by proxy to access the labour market from their child who is an applicant for international protection where they themselves are not applicants.
Go Back

J.R. (Algeria) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 296
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:23 Apr 2024
Judge:Gearty M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Country of Origin, Credibility, Protection (Application for International)
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b38b6ed8-183e-45cf-8c5b-ee65b047562c/2024_IEHC_296.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:M.Y. v. IPAT [2022] IEHC 345, I.L. v. IPAT [2021] IEHC 106

Facts: The applicant was an Algerian national for international protection. He claimed that his uncle had threated to kill him over a family dispute about property and that, despite reporting it to the police, no action was taken. He submitted that his uncle held a powerful position in a terrorist organisation and had also threatened and attacked his parents. Furthermore, … Read More

Principles:Decisions on the credibility of applications for international protection must provide clear reasons for the acceptance or refusal of the case.
Go Back

A.C. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Chief International Protection Officer, Minister for Justice, Ireland, and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Feb 2024
Judge:Hyland, N.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Member State (Remain in the), Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f5518126-801f-499a-a303-041dd2a48e4d/2024_IEHC_77.pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/19909f5d-cb67-4e57-b174-3cb5de60c82d/2024_IEHC_211.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:C-359, AHY v Minister for Justice

Facts: The applicant, an Algerian national, applied for international protection in Ireland. It was found that he had previously been in Spain. The International Protection Office (IPO) sent a take back request to Spain under the Dublin III Regulation and Spain accepted responsibility for his application. Upon being informed of this, the applicant’s solicitors made submissions to the Minister for … Read More

Principles:The process for applications made under Article 17(1), Dublin III Regulation was, at the time of this case, unclear and went against the need for a clear and prompt system for Dublin transfers. A decision made under Article 17(1) must issue at the same time as a transfer decision.
Go Back

TF v Minister for Justice

EMNireland


TF v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2023] IECA 183
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:20 Jul 2023
Judge:Ni Raifeartaigh U, Allen S, Butler N
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin Information, Refugee Status (Withdrawal of)
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5e6dced8-d446-478c-815b-f7d9bc245133/2023_IECA_183.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellant was a Romanian national of Roma ethnicity who arrived in Ireland in 2001 and was granted refugee status in 2004 on the basis that he had suffered persecution at the hands of the Romanian police on account of his ethnicity. He became a naturalised Irish citizen in 2015. In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued by … Read More

Principles:In order to make a valid decision to revoke a person’s refugee status there must be an individualised assessment not just of the general circumstances in the country of origin but also of the factors relied upon by the individual at the time they were granted asylum.
Go Back

L.K. -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors

EMNireland


L.K. -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 441
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:26 Apr 2023
Judge:Heslin M., Ferriter C.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant, Labour market access, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Reception Conditions
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/153ff350-64ad-40e3-885f-c3783365ca98/2022_IEHC_441.pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://courts.ie/view/judgments/a8214e9c-ffea-41bc-9246-587b20791b2d/5b4865e6-b107-4c5d-aa1b-f1ffcacf72b4/2023_IEHC_210.pdf/pdf

Facts: The case concerned a Georgian national who applied for international protection at the IPO in September 2019. He completed the section 13 process, but not the section 15 process required to complete the lodging of his application. This was because he required a Georgian interpreter, and he was informed that he would be contacted when this could be arranged. … Read More

Principles:The introduction of delay attributable ‘in part’ to an applicant in regulation 11(4)(b) of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 as a reason for refusing labour market access is not foreseen in the recast Reception Conditions Directive. It dilutes the provision for labour market access and incorrectly transposes EU law.
Go Back

S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & ors

EMNireland


S.Y. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth & ors
Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland, the Attorney General, the Child and Family Agency
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 187
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Apr 2023
Judge: Meenan C.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Minor, Protection (Application for International), Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material)
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/599db9da-fb81-48fc-9cfb-cbbdfa313df5/2023_IEHC_187.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellant was a 17-year-old Afghan national who applied for international protection in Ireland. He did not have documents to prove his age when he applied for international protection, and it was believed by authorities that he was an adult. When he applied, he was informed that there was no accommodation available for international protection applicants. He was given … Read More

Principles: Failure to provide an applicant with material reception conditions is unlawful under the European Union (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 and such a failure is a breach of the right to human dignity under Article 1 CFREU.
Go Back

A (A Minor) -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Labour Market Access)

EMNireland


A (A Minor) -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Labour Market Access)
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 141
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2023
Judge:Simons, G.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Child, Child Labour, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Family Member, Minor, Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material), Regularisation
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/a6ff02c1-775d-46fd-b3d7-e4c89cf081b2/3dfbcb87-96e0-4360-a374-0c4447b6a4bd/2023_IEHC_141.pdf/pdf

Facts: The claimants were two parents and their child, who was under the age of two. The parents previously applied for international protection and their applications were unsuccessful. They were then subject to deportation orders.   Their child was born in April 2021 and an application was made for international protection in respect of the child. The parents contended that they … Read More

Principles:An infant child does not have a right to work in the Irish State, not only under the recast Reception Conditions Directive, but under national law. Thus the parents could not vicariously exercise a right that the child did not hold. The parents also could not derive a right to work from the child applicant.
Go Back

A.S.A. v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


ASA v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2022
Judge: MacMenamin J.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Carltona Principle, Deportation, Leave to Remain, Protection (International), Return
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/b76af74a-fd59-4100-9a63-31b836b1eeed/de05c437-f17e-47ad-a7d9-893981bb5f42/2022_IESC_49.pdf/pdf

 Facts: The appellant was a national of Nigeria. He submitted an application for international protection in 2016, which was unsuccessful. The appellant was informed that an International Protection Officer (IPO) had recommended he not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection pursuant to section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015. He was subsequently informed that the Minister for Justice … Read More

Principles:There is no conflict of roles or functions exists between an international protection officer in their role in the international protection procedure, and an officer of the Minister in their role in permission to remain decisions under section 49 of the 2015 Act.
Go Back

H.A. v Minister for Justice

EMNireland


H.A. v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:H.A.
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2022] IECA 166
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Jul 2022
Judge: Donnelly A
Category:Asylum, Family Reunification, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Child, Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bc913491-38f9-446a-ba0f-6324d8b0c8ad/2022_IECA_166.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

 Facts: The respondent was a national of Somalia who was granted refugee status in Ireland. She applied for family reunification with her niece and nephew under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015. Her niece and nephew are orphans and she had accepted responsibility for them. A ‘Declaration of Responsibility’ from Somalia was submitted in this regard.  The application … Read More

Principles:In a decision on a family reunification application, the Minister must consider evidence submitted as regards the relationship of a parent to the child, in this case, a Declaration of Responsibility. This should be referenced in the decision issued by the decision maker.
Go Back

A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

admin


A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review /Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Jul 2022
Judge:MacMenamin J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Appeal, Asylum, Asylum Applicant, Deportation Order, Final Decision
Country of Origin:Georgia, Brazil
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/f081dc1c-a3d2-4466-98aa-d2b12e68774a/0df6da0b-dc38-4b7b-9784-c3e79fe99faf/2022_IESC_35_McMenamin%20J.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. A, from Georgia, and Ms. B, from Brazil, both separately applied for international protection in Ireland. It was recommended that their applications be refused under section 39(3)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015 and reports were issued to the Minister under section 40 of the 2015 Act recommending the refusal of their applications. Neither appellant brought an appeal … Read More

Principles:The IPAT acted ultra vires in not allowing persons who had received a negative first instance decision to apply for an extension of time to appeal. Persons who are no longer considered applicants may apply to extend the time to appeal a decision issued under section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015.
Go Back

SH and AJ v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

admin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 392
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jun 2022
Judge:Ferriter C.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Discrimination (Indirect), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Syria, Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/80e83a63-c91b-47e7-a90d-99f4a672064e/2022_IEHC_392.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: SH was a Syrian national whose wife and three children resided in Syria. SH applied for international protection in Ireland in February 2020. There were delays in processing his case, including due to COVID-19. While awaiting an interview, one of SH’s sons turned 18. SH was granted refugee status in June 2021 and subsequently made a family reunification application … Read More

Principles:The delays experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic were exceptional and not unreasonable delays for processing an international protection application. The scope of the definition of family members eligible for family reunification under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 was a matter of policy choice by the legislature and not in breach of EU law, nor was it repugnant to the Constitution or the ECHR. Failure to inform a beneficiary of international protection of their right to family reunification promptly and in a language they can likely understand is in violation of Article 22 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC
Go Back

UM v the Minister for Foreign Affairs & anor

admin


M v the Minister for Foreign Affairs & anor
Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Passport Appeals Officer David Barry
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 25
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:02 Jun 2022
Judge: Dunne E.
Category:Citizenship, Citizenship (Loss of), Refugee Law
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Citizenship (Loss of), Dependant, Family Member, Refugee, Refugee Status (Withdrawal of)
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/489c8348-eefe-4710-ad77-5d07c5900dfe/c6e228ba-8511-496c-bfcf-97e1fb6be228/2022_IESC_25_Dunne%20J.pdf/pdf

Facts: UM was born in Galway in June 2013. His father, MM, an Afghan national, was declared a refugee in in Ireland in 2006. In June 2013, MM was informed by the Department of Justice of an intention to revoke his refugee status on grounds including that he had returned to Afghanistan and stayed there for two months and that … Read More

Principles:Revocation of refugee status has prospective effect. A residence status conferred by the State on a parent based on false or misleading information could, under the terms of the relevant legislation, be included for the calculation of the period required to confer an entitlement of citizenship to their child.
Go Back

M.Y. v the International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor

admin


M.Y. v the International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 345
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:13 May 2022
Judge:Ferriter J.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Burden of Proof, Country of Origin, Deportation Order, Persecution, Refugee (Convention)
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/d67b3aa8-41b1-495e-bdf7-8a8f182e1cec/0473cf81-9c10-40c0-b260-8c64e64cd1bd/2022_IEHC_345.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicant was a member of the Berber Amazigh people, an ethnic minority in Algeria and supported the ideals of the Berber separatist MAK movement. He travelled to the UK on a short-term visa in 2013 and remained there after its expiry. In 2018, he travelled to Ireland and applied for international protection. The IPO recommended that he not … Read More

Principles:When refusing an application under section 28(6) of the International Protection Act 2015, the core elements of the provision should be assessed. Albeit obiter, Ferriter J stated that the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in HJ (Iran) can be applied to Convention grounds other than those that relate to sexual orientation and HJ (Iran) should be applied carefully to the facts of the case when remitted for fresh consideration.
Go Back

KS and MHK v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Advocate General and RAT and DS v Minister for Justice and Equality (Joined Cases C-322/19 and C-385/19)

emnadminLeave a Comment


KS and others v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Equality and others
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Advocate General and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Citation/s:ECLI:EU:C:2021:11
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary Reference
Judgment Date/s:14 Jan 2021
Judge:Piçarra N (Rapporteur)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Dublin Regulation, Employment, Reception Conditions, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=236427&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1675215

Facts: KS, MHK, RAT and DS applied for international protection in Ireland between 2015 and 2018. They were subsequently issued with transfer decisions to other Member States pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation 604/2013, which they appealed. In the interim, all four applicants had been refused permission to access the labour market due to the exclusion of persons in Dublin … Read More

Principles:-          Where a national court is interpreting provisions of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, account must be taken of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, even where the Member State has not opted into that legislation.
Go Back

A, S and I v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 70
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:08 Dec 2020
Judge:Dunne E
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child (Separated), Family (Nuclear), Family Unity (Right to), Protection (International), Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d0eae3ec-52c2-41af-8f01-f97a34a2d5ab/2020_IESC_70_Dunne%20J.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first and second applicants were recognised refugees whose applications for family reunification with their wives were refused on the basis that their marriages took place after they had applied for international protection. They challenged the constitutionality and/or ECHR compatibility of section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 (which limits the right of family reunification to spouses where … Read More

Principles:The limitation of the right to family reunification to spouses whose marriages took place prior to submission of an application for international protection was neither unconstitutional nor in breach of the ECHR. The absolute 12 month time limit for submission of an application for family reunification was neither unconstitutional nor in breach of the ECHR.
Go Back