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

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

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

Case C-481/13 – Qurbani v Staatsanwaltschaft Würzburg

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Staatsanwaltschaft Würzburg
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-481/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:17 Jul 2014
Judge:CJEU, Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský, A. Prechal and K. Jürimäe, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Entry (Illegal), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=155104&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=223629
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Article 31(1) of the Geneva Convention provides:- “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the … Read More

Principles:

In the context of references under Article 267 TFEU, the CJEU has jurisdiction to interpret international agreements concluded between Member States and third countries only where the European Union has assumed powers previously exercised by the Member States in the field to which an international convention not concluded by the European Union applied, and the provisions of which had the effect of binding the European Union. That is not the position with regard to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, because the Member States retain certain powers falling within the field of asylum / refugee status. Accordingly, the CJEU has no jurisdiction to interpret the Geneva Convention under the Article 267 TFEU procedure.

Go Back

MM v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


MM
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:Case C-277/11
Nature of Proceedings:Judgment of the ECJ on a preliminary reference from the Irish High Court (Hogan J) pursuant to Article 267 TFEU
Judgment Date/s:22 Nov 2012
Judge:ECJ
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Rwanda
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=130241&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1029079
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts The ECJ gave judgment on a preliminary reference by the High Court in the context of judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of the Minister refusing the applicant’s application for subsidiary protection. In essence, the question referred by the High Court was: does the requirement to cooperate with the applicant for subsidiary protection, following a refusal to grant refugee … Read More

Principles:

The requirement on a Member State to cooperate with an applicant per Article 4(1), second sentence, cannot be interpreted to mean that, where a foreign national requests subsidiary protection status after he has been refused refugee status and the competent national authority is minded to reject that second application as well, the authority is obliged – before adopting its decision – to inform the applicant that it proposes to reject his application and notify him of the arguments on which it intends to base its rejection, so as to enable him to make his views known.

However, in the case of a system where there are two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection, it is for the national court to ensure the applicant’s fundamental rights are observed in each of these procedures, particularly the right to be heard in the sense that the applicant must be able to make his views known before any decision is adopted that does not grant the protection requested. The fact that the applicant has already been duly heard when his application for refugee status was examined does not mean that that procedural requirement may be dispensed with in the procedure relating to the application for subsidiary protection.

Go Back

SL v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2011 IEHC 370, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:06 Oct 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Determining Asylum Authority, Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Union Citizen
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ef6ab8d82cb1ce3d80257935003a8a7c
Geographic Focus:Ireland

On 14 March 2011, the High Court had granted the applicant leave to seek to judicial review in respect of his claim that the procedures in place under the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006), which implement in Irish law Directive 2004/83/EC, contain a structural flaw. The applicant, who had applied for subsidiary protection, … Read More

Principles:
  1. Directive 2005/85/EC applies only to asylum, except where a Member State avails of Article 3.4 of that Directive, and Ireland has not taken that course, and does not have a single combined procedure for asylum and subsidiary protection.
  2. In the alternative, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform is the ‘determining authority’ re subsidiary protection in light of Regulation 4 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006).
Go Back

SN (Uganda) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2011 IEHC 451, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Hearing of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing subsidiary protection
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common Basic Principles, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c1455e40-b6d4-4dd4-b529-4a9ef046d6ad/2011_IEHC_451_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been granted leave to seek judicial review on one ground, namely whether the Minister’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant subsidiary protection contravened Regulations 5(1) and (2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) by failing to consider and state a conclusion on the claim made by the applicant that … Read More

Principles:
  1. In applying Regulation 5(2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) the decision maker must:
    • ask himself whether an applicant suffered persecution or serious harm in the past. If the answer to this question is yes, the decision maker is required;
    • to ask whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm would not be repeated if the applicant was returned to her country of origin. If the answer to that question is yes, the decision maker is still required;
    • to apply the counter exception of Regulation 5(2) and ask whether there are compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution or serious harm alone such as might warrant a determination that the applicant is eligible for protection.
  2. Where a decision maker takes the view that there are many other possible causes for an applicant’s injuries, the decision maker is still obliged to address the question of whether the applicant did in fact suffer serious harm in the sense of the Regulations, namely, whether the injuries were inflicted by State actors in the manner alleged.
  3. If a decision maker is satisfied that there is no reason for considering that the previous harm would be repeated, he is still obliged to consider whether the historic serious harm may be such that the fact of its occurrence alone gives rise to compelling reasons for recognising eligibility.
Go Back

MM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:18 May 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Rwanda
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/88e3f649-872c-4384-9763-1b56ba18770b/2011_IEHC_547_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe
References:Ahmed v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Decisions of the Dutch Council of State in case no.s AWB 07/14744 and 07/14733

The Applicant was a national of Rwanda who claimed refugee status in Ireland. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended that he not be declared a refugee. This recommendation was confirmed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on the grounds that the Applicant’s claim was not credible. The negative recommendation was accepted by the Minister and the Applicant was denied refugee status. He … Read More

Principles:

The question of whether the asylum authorities must communicate with applicants in advance of negative decisions was referred to the CJEU in Luxembourg

Go Back