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

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

RG v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

EMNireland


RG v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Chief International Protection Officer, Minister for Justice, Ireland, and Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2023
Judge:Hyland N.
Category:Asylum
Keywords:Asylum, Dublin Regulation, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8d2a1d66-9f1e-4000-94a0-51bedbd0e511/2023_IEHC_742.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: RG was a Georgian man who sought international protection in Ireland. It was found that he had previously applied for international protection in France. A transfer decision was issued under the Dublin III Regulation 604/2013. He applied to the High Court seeking an injunction restraining his transfer or to stay on the transfer decision, pending ongoing judicial review proceedings. … Read More

Principles:Articles 27 and 29 of the Dublin III Regulation and the time limits set therein are a self-contained regime. While the first remedy must provide suspensive effect, further remedies, such as judicial review, do not.
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

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

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

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2018] IECA 102
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Apr 2018
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum application (Examination of an), Dublin Regulation
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/73a849bf-89a5-4d52-bcc1-466e2b4344f5/2018_IECA_102_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an Afghan national who applied for asylum in the State. A Eurodac search subsequently revealed that he had previously applied for asylum 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 … Read More

Principles:There were arguable grounds that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal erred in law by ruling that it had no jurisdiction to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation and by failing to consider the consequences for the applicant’s mental health of physically transporting him from Ireland to the United Kingdom and all the significant and permanent consequences that might arise from such a transfer.
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

U v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 613
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:26 Jun 2017
Judge:O’Regan M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/114ec226-d494-4b1f-a961-c25e699cb9dc/2017_IEHC_613_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicants were a family of Pakistani nationals comprising a mother and her three children. They were granted visas to travel to the United Kingdom to allow them join their husband/father, where they resided between May 2014 and June 2015. They arrived in Ireland on 5 June 2015 and applied for asylum alleging a fear of persecution in Pakistan. … Read More

Principles:

In order to prevent the execution of a transfer order on Article 8 grounds, an especially compelling case under Article 8 would have to be demonstrated.

Go Back

BS and RS v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 179
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Jun 2017
Judge:Peart M.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ba1a0aa7-2215-4092-bf2c-15b9ab85e89d/2017_IECA_179_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants were two Albanian asylum seekers who challenged the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upholding the decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the United Kingdom was the member state responsible for determining their applications for asylum. The applicants claimed asylum in Ireland on 16 December 2014, and completed their asylum application questionnaires on … Read More

Principles:

The Dublin III Regulation introduced and enhanced the rights of individual asylum seekers in relation to the making of transfer decisions under the Regulation.  However, the concept of an effective remedy under Article 27(1) of the Dublin III Regulation could not be extended to the point that it could be used to challenge a transfer decision on the basis that the Annex V form was incorrectly completed. The provision of the appellants’ fingerprints by the Irish authorities to the UK was in pursuit of the legitimate interest of providing information to ascertain which member state was responsible for their asylum applications, in accordance with section 2A of the Data Protection Act 1988.

Go Back

TM v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 469
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Not stated
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/f96bea1e6365386b8025800b003fc435?OpenDocument
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: This case concerned transfers pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation, and whether an applicant could challenge a decision to make a transfer order on the basis that (1) the transfer decision was invalid because the information request failed to state the grounds on which it was based contrary to art.34 of the Dublin III regulation; (2) the transfer decision … Read More

Principles:

This decision is significant because it limits an applicant’s right to challenge a transfer order pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation to alleged breaches of the criteria for transfer. All other provisions of the Regulation such as provision of information or time limits for requests are addressed to the member states and an applicant is therefore not entitled to challenge a transfer on those grounds. (This decision is under appeal).

Go Back

TAJ v Minister for Justice and Another

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality and Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Nov 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Bangladesh
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ecd9b423-2139-4615-be09-6af99c78b4bd/2015_IEHC_726_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a Bangladeshi national, claimed asylum in Ireland. He denied ever having been outside Bangladesh before travelling to the State and said that he had never applied for asylum anywhere. He failed to disclose previous asylum history in other EU Member States. The Refugee Applications Commissioner made a request for information to the United Kingdom authorities pursuant to … Read More

Principles:

Where an asylum applicant appeals to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal against a decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that another Member State is responsible for examining his or her asylum application under the Dublin III Regulation, the time-limit for transfer is suspended during the currency of the appeal. The effective remedy required by the Dublin III Regulation is constituted by the appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and not judicial review in the High Court.

Go Back

JMO v Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 467
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Aug 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Country of Origin Information, Dublin Regulation, Family Member, Persecution, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Russia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a6c83799-e4f3-4e11-a887-3fe619ed2941/2014_IEHC_467_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Russian national, who claimed to be of Chechen ethnicity. He applied for asylum in the State on that account and gave a history which was untrue in that he failed to disclose he had applied for asylum in Slovakia. This was brought to his attention by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and he made representations as … Read More

Principles:

A rebuttable presumption exists that the treatment of asylum seekers in all EU Member States complies with the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. Not every infringement of relevant Directives will preclude the transfer of an applicant under the Dublin Regulation. In order to rebut the presumption, cogent evidence must be shown of a “real risk” of being subject to a breach of rights if transferred to a receiving country under the Dublin Regulation. 

Go Back

Mohammadi v Austria

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Austria
Citation/s:Application No. 71932/12
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:03 Jul 2014
Judge:European Court of Human Rights (First Section)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Dublin Regulation, Refoulement, Refugee
URL:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-145233#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Mohammadi%20v%20Austria%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-145233%22]}
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant was an Afghan national. He applied for asylum in Austria. His application was transferred to Hungary under the Dublin II Regulation. His removal was suspended on the basis of an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The applicant contended that, if transferred to Hungary, he would be at risk of imprisonment in atrocious … Read More

Principles:

An EU Member State which is, therefore, a  Contracting State to the ECHR, is precluded under the ECHR from transferring a person to another State under the Dublin II Regulation where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR in the receiving country. In deciding whether a real risk exists, regard must be had to the laws of the receiving State, reception conditions there, whether it is possible for the returnee to have his or her application for asylum examined there, and whether or not the UNHCR has issued a position paper requesting the cessation of returns to that country.

Go Back

Joined cases C-411/10 NS and C-493/10 ME

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Secretary of State for the Home Department et al
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2011] ECR I-0000
Judgment Date/s:21 Dec 2011
Judge:Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Country of Origin (Safe), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=216473
Geographic Focus:Europe

In Case C-411/10 N.S., the applicant, an Afghan national, came to the UK after travelling through, inter alia, Greece. He did not apply for asylum in Greece, and he claimed that the Greek authorities detained him, gave him an order to leave Greece, and subsequently arrested him and expelled him to Turkey, from where he travelled to the UK. The … Read More

Principles:

A Member State exercising its discretionary power under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation must be considered as implementing EU law within the meaning of Article 6 TEU and Article 51(1) of the Charter. Presumptions that Member States comply with the Charter, Geneva Convention, and ECHR must be regarded as rebuttable. Member State may not transfer an asylum seeker under the Dublin Regulation where it cannot be unaware that systematic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in a receiving Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter.

Subject to Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, where a Member State finds that it is impossible to transfer an applicant to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation, the Member State must continue to examine the criteria in Chapter III of the Regulation in order to establish whether one of the following criteria enables another Member State to be identified as responsible for the examination of the asylum application.

The Member State in which an applicant is present must ensure that it does not worsen a situation where an applicant’s fundamental rights have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. If necessary, the Member State where the applicant is present must examine the application under Article 3(2) of the Regulation. Information such as that cited by the EctHR, re relevant risks to which asylum seekers would be exposed, enables Member States to assess the functioning of the Member States’ asylum systems, making it possible to evaluate risks.

Go Back

AW v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Anor

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:A.W
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 258
Judgment Date/s:02 Jul 2010
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker, Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7364af66-4ebd-4b47-8495-c78983375c05/2010_IEHC_258_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

A.W., a national of Pakistan, applied ex parte for an interim injunction to restrain his transfer under to the UK under the Dublin Regulation. He had applied for asylum in Ireland but it was subsequently discovered that he had held a visa issued by the UK in September 2008 for two years. The UK acceded to Ireland’s request to take … Read More

Go Back

Amin Wadria 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:[2010] IEHC 90
Judgment Date/s:13 Jan 2010
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/39eee4fa-03be-4e17-b7ab-64f1570e3bb3/2010_IEHC_90_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe

The Applicant was a national of Algeria who came to Ireland and claimed asylum in August 2005. He did not disclose that he had been refused asylum in Britain in 2003. When this fact was discovered, a request was made to the UK to accept his return pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Dublin Regulation. That request was accepted the … Read More

Go Back

NAS v James Nicholson (Acting as the Refugee Appeals Tribunal) & Anor

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:James Nicholson (Acting as the Refugee Appeals Tribunal) & Anor
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2006] IEHC 29
Judgment Date/s:07 Feb 2006
Judge:Herbert
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Dublin Convention, Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status, Transfer Order
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/6f4ee374-a577-412c-bd11-71c9e7ed140d/2006_IEHC_29_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:Article 16(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (the Dublin Regulation)

The applicant applied for asylum in Ireland after previously applying for asylum in the Netherlands. Ireland applied to the Netherlands to take the applicant back under Article 16(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (the Dublin Regulation). The Netherlands agreed to take the applicant back under Article 16(1)(e) of the Regulation  and the Refugee Applications Commissioner decided that the applicant … Read More

Principles:

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal is restricted to consideration of Chapter III of the Dublin Regulation when dealing with appeals regarding transfer.

Go Back

EM v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2005] IEHC 403
Judgment Date/s:15 Nov 2005
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Dublin Convention, Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status, Transfer Order
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ded53068-9c3a-4a28-b8b3-9659c9d630b9/2005_IEHC_403_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:Refugee Act 1996

The applicant applied for asylum having previously applied in the UK. The Minister made a transfer order against the applicant pursuant to Article 7 of the Refugee Act 1996 (Section 22) Order 2003 to allow the applicant be transferred to the UK. The applicant averred that she would be a suicide risk if the transfer went ahead. She sought to … Read More

Principles:

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has discretion not to implement a transfer order made under article 7(1) of the Refugee Act 1996 (Section 22) Order 2003. The Minister is obliged as a matter of fair procedures to determine an applicant’s request not to implement a transfer order. The Minister is obliged to uphold an applicant’s right to life as guaranteed by Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution and as a consequence has an implicit power not to implement a transfer order where the protection of the life of an applicant is at issue.

Go Back