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

MIF v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Feb 2018
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Applicant (Examination of an), Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Asylum shopping, Dublin Regulation, Geneva Convention and Protocol
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1fdfdf7c-9a22-4e8e-8373-93b3d793d31e/2018_IECA_36_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Pakistani national who applied for asylum in the State. A Eurodac search subsequently revealed that he had previously resided in the United Kingdom and the Refugee Applications Commissioner subsequently made a decision to transfer the applicant to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation. The applicant appealed this decision to the International Protection … Read More

Principles:Article 31 of the Refugee Convention did not confer an open-ended choice on asylum seekers as to the country where they would submit their application for asylum. The Dublin III Regulation provides for a system of jurisdiction allocation between Member States which is designed to avoid forum shopping and potentially abusive applications in a multiplicity of States, as expressly contemplated by Article 78(2)(e) of the TFEU. It could not be said that the Dublin Regulation, which was expressly authorised by the Treaties, was unlawful on the ground that it was contrary to an international treaty such as the Refugee Convention which, in any event, was not in itself part of the law of the European Union
Go Back