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

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

A v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General; B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, and the Attorney General

EMNireland


A v Minister for Justice, Ireland & anor; B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, the Attorney General, the International Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Mar 2024
Judge:Phelan, S.
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Applicant, Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Return, Return Decision, Third Country, Third Country (Safe), Transfer Order
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8f8d74f5-2195-459e-af49-2269c01f071f/2024_IEHC_183.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: This case concerns the lawfulness of the designation of the United Kingdom as a safe third country under section 72A of the International Protection Act 2015. The two applicants, A and B, are Iraqi and Nigerian and separately applied for international protection in Ireland. A biometric data request was sent to the UK under the 2014 UK/Ireland Memorandum of … Read More

Principles:The designation of a safe third country in the international protection system must be compliant with EU law, including the Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU. This is necessary because of the operation of the Dublin III Regulation, in which Ireland participates, and for the functioning of the Common European Asylum System.
Go Back

NVU v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


NVU v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 46
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:24 Jul 2020
Judge:Charleton P
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d6d97d9b-4212-40ae-a63d-f35167872560/2020_IESC_46(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants were a family of Pakistani nationals who had originally travelled to the United Kingdom on a visa, but subsequently came to Ireland and claimed asylum. In accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, a first instance decision was made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the United Kingdom was the responsible Member State and it was therefore proposed … Read More

Principles:The Article 17 discretion had not been devolved onto to the statutory bodies with responsibility for examining refugee applications and appeals, but rather was exercisable only by the Minister for Justice.
Go Back

NVU v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

emnadminLeave a Comment


NVU v Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2019] IECA 183
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:26 Jun 2019
Judge:Baker M
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/31278c52-532f-445e-b1a1-ef95691a18d2/2019_IECA_183_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts This appeal concerned article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation which vests in Member States the discretion to deal with an application for refugee status on humanitarian or compassionate grounds where Dublin III would otherwise have resulted in that application being transferred to another Member State. The issue concerned the identity of the appropriate national authority to exercise the … Read More

Principles:The sovereign discretion in article 17 is exercisable in Irish law by the national asylum authorities and is not reserved to the Minister for Justice.
Go Back

BS v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2019] IESC 32
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 May 2019
Judge:Charleton P; Dunne E
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2b3a182b-d1c1-4f36-850b-5eb03e350f48/2019_IESC_32_4.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellants were Albanian nationals who previously lived in Kosovo. They arrived in Ireland on 12 December 2014 and two days later they made an application for asylum. They did not disclose a full account of the circumstances of their arrival in Ireland, in particular that they had previously been issued with a visa for the United Kingdom. On … Read More

Principles:Information requests pursuant to article 34 of the Dublin III Regulation are not intended to require a lengthy account of the grounds for seeking the information.
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