SK v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2025] IEHC 231
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:08 Apr 2025
Judge:Barr, A.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Country of Origin, Family Reunification, Protection (Subsidiary)
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/942b249e-fbac-4ed7-bfcc-1afe6a2446ff/2025_IEHC_231.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an Afghan national who arrived in Ireland when he was 17. He was granted subsidiary protection in 2019. He applied for visas for his mother and five siblings to join him in Ireland pursuant to the non-EEA family reunification policy. The Minister refused the family reunification visa applications. The main refusal reasons included that the applicant … Read More

Principles:In deciding on applications for family reunification from subsidiary protection holders, particular regard must be had in the decision to the exception circumstances of the applicant and the humanitarian and safety situation in the country of origin.
Go Back

TRI (a minor suing by his mother and next friend, LB) v Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2025] IESC 7
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal (judicial review)
Judgment Date/s:14 Feb 2025
Judge:Donnelly, A.
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Naturalisation, Protection (Subsidiary)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62c17908-51e3-4a7a-a93e-6696fb4cce64/2025_IESC_7.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

The applicant is a child on behalf of whom an application was made for Irish citizenship under s. 6A(2)(d)(i) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. The child’s mother was a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Ireland. Section 6A(2)(d)(i) provides that a child of a parent who at the time of birth was entitled to reside in the State … Read More

Principles:A person who holds subsidiary protection status has a right to reside within the State for a period of three years, which shall be renewable, but that period of residence is subject to restrictions. This is because of the condition that the person remains entitled to that declaration of subsidiary protection. As such, this person cannot be considered as a parent who is entitled to reside in the State without any restriction on his or her period of residence under s. 6(2)(d)(i) 1956 Act for the purposes of the citizenship eligibility of their child.
Go Back

T.R.I. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend LB) v the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 96
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2024
Judge:Bolger, Marguerite
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Citizenship, Naturalisation, Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Residence Permit
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/36d60b60-b600-4311-a7bd-9108eb22ffb7/2024_IEHC_96.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:AJK v The Minister for Defence [2020]

Facts: The applicant was a child who was born in Ireland and whose mother held subsidiary protection status in the State. The child’s mother applied for an Irish passport for the child relying on section 6A(2)(d)(i) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. Section 6A(1) of the 1956 Act provides that a person who was born in Ireland shall … Read More

Principles:The period of residence of subsidiary protection holders is temporally restricted. The children of subsidiary protection holders therefore cannot rely on s. 6A (2)(d)(i), Irish Citizenship and Nationality Act 1956 to apply for citizenship.
Go Back

I.A.H. v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

EMNireland


I.A.H. v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 117
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:08 Mar 2023
Judge: Phelan S.
Category:Visa
Keywords:Country of Origin, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Protection (Subsidiary), Visa
Country of Origin:Iraq
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/944524e5-c5e2-4cb2-a71c-4408eff09ab5/2023_IEHC_117.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant is an Iraqi national who arrived in Ireland in 2011. She was granted subsidiary protection status in 2015 and in 2018 married an Iraqi national by proxy. She applied for a visa for him to join her in Ireland in 2019 under the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification. The Minister refused this application and the appeal … Read More

Principles:In considering an application for family reunification under the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification for a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, proper consideration must be given the impact on the applicant’s protection status and family life and ability to live together elsewhere.
Go Back

TSS v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 491
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Zimbabwe
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b0017c7e-c776-46d6-b5f2-0bc355a8604b/2016_IEHC_491_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was born in Zimbabwe in 1987. He was the victim of a kidnapping and beatings by government supporters in the Misulongo area. He came to Ireland in June 2008 and applied for asylum. This was refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. He then applied for subsidiary protection, which was … Read More

Principles:

The decision in TSS is significant as it provides guidance to decision-makers on the two step test that must be applied in protection decisions based on a finding that there is an internal protection alternative.

Go Back

ED v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Citation/s:[2015] IECA 118
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:10 Jun 2015
Judge:Peart, Irvine and Hogan JJ.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Ghana
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d8f17975-159b-4d2d-ae96-01349f6b785f/2015_IECA_118_3.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant applied for asylum in 2010 and was refused in February, 2011. She did not apply for subsidiary protection within the 15 day time-limit prescribed in the letter refusing her application for asylum. Instead, she applied for leave to remain. In 2013, a deportation order was made against her. She then consulted new solicitors who applied to the … Read More

Principles:

An application for asylum, which is governed by domestic legislation which reflects a Member State’s obligations under the Qualification Directive, may possibly be regarded as an appropriate comparator in respect of an application for subsidiary protection for the purposes of the principle of equivalence. The CJEU will determine the matter in due course.

Go Back

MA v Minister for Justice and Others

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 287
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:06 May 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/52c495d9-4a8b-4f96-8f40-c8d9ef9849e5/2015_IEHC_287_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, an Afghan national, sought certiorari of a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing him subsidiary protection, contending that it was based upon a flawed internal relocation finding. The Minister objected that that complaint was not pleaded in the statement of grounds. The court allowed the complaint to proceed and quashed the subsidiary protection decision. Reasoning: The … Read More

Principles:

This decision shows that, in an effort to ensure that EU law obligations are achieved, the Court will not shut out an applicant from relief because his pleadings challenging an administrative decision lack the specificity normally required.

Go Back

HN v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2014] IESC 30
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Mar 2015
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/291BB82D1931872F80257E1500568898
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The appellant purported to make a stand-alone application for subsidiary protection to the Minister for Justice under the EC (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. The Minister replied that he was not entitled to make such an application because he had not been refused a declaration of refugee status, never having applied for same. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged that decision by … Read More

Principles:

Delay caused by the refusal of a person to participate in a legally required process and consequent unsuccessful proceedings seeking to have that process declared unlawful will not ground a claim for damages. In the instant case, a person who refused to apply for refugee status could not successfully set aside the refusal of a purported application for subsidiary protection, as the latter application could only be determined if the person had made an application for refugee status.

Go Back

MSM and NAS (a minor) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 237
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Mar 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum, Deportation, Member State (Remain in the), Minor, Nationality, Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Somalia / Tanzania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/08ce8a40-8de1-4fca-a174-c97f11cbf4ad/2015_IEHC_237_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first applicant claimed to be a Somali national of the Bajuni tribe. She sought asylum in Ireland saying that she had suffered persecution on Chula Island in Somalia, which took the form of two attacks against her. She claimed to have left Chula after the first attack on her family and to have gone to Tanzania where an … Read More

Principles:

When assessing the nationality of an applicant for international protection, a protection decision-maker is entitled to have regard to information which reliably indicates that the applicant possesses has another identity and nationality and has not been candid in making the application. If it is proposed to treat the applicant has having a different nationality to the one claimed by him or her, the decision-maker should put the information which has prompted such a course of action to the applicant for comment.

Unless an applicant puts cogent evidence forward to explain how he or she appears to have a different nationality to the one claimed, and why it would be incorrect to treat him or her as having that nationality, the decision-maker does not have to give express reasons for rejecting such evidence. The decision-maker, having rejected the claimed nationality, does not have to prove that the applicant has a particular nationality.

The fact that a language analysis report may cast doubt on the proposal to treat the applicant as having a particular nationality is not decisive, particularly if it casts doubt on the claimed nationality. Such a report is merely one piece of evidence to be considered in the round.

Go Back

AAR 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:[2015] IEHC 32
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Jan 2015
Judge:Stewart J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Deportation, Persecution, Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Tanzania / Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a50267d5-22d8-4fbd-9609-f85f712dcc2a/2015_IEHC_32_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant claimed to be a national of Somalia and a member of the Bajuni ethnic group. He said he lived on the island of Chula with his wife and five children. He sought asylum in Ireland, claiming to have fled persecution in Somalia at the hands of an Islamist militia fighting the then government. His application for asylum … Read More

Principles:

A person who makes an application for subsidiary protection or leave to remain is an active participant in the process and it is incumbent on him or her to make available to the decision-making body the evidence needed to make a decision on it. Such a person cannot validly complain if there has been undue delay on his or her part in submitting such information, leading to its not being before the decision-maker at the time of making the decision.

A decision to deport a non-Irish national who is suffering from a serious mental or physical illness to a country where the facilities for the treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the State can raise an issue under article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment), but only in a very exceptional case, where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are compelling.

Go Back

OO v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 11
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Jan 2015
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Protection (Subsidiary)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/029063635A97608280257DD5004FC43A
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The first applicant was a Nigerian national. She arrived in Ireland and unsuccessfully claimed asylum, including her son, the second applicant, in her claim. They then applied unsuccessfully for subsidiary protection and leave to remain, following which deportation orders were made against them. After arriving in Ireland, she gave birth to a daughter, the third applicant. Applications for asylum and … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant for subsidiary protection has been wrongly informed that he or she has been granted such protection, as to prompt additional representations from their in support of an application for leave to remain, if those representations have been received after the making of a deportation order by the Minister for Justice, but before its notification, then the Minister, in the interests of fairness, ought to revoke the deportation order  under s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999, and reconsider whether or not it should be made in the light of all the representations received at that juncture.

Go Back

Case C-562/13 – Abdida v Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Centre public d'action sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-562/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:18 Dec 2014
Judge:CJEU, Grand Chamber: V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, M. Ilešič, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), T. von Danwitz, J.-C. Bonichot and K. Jürimäe, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, M. Berger and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Deportation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Deportation, Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Return Decision
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160943&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=223364
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Under Belgian law, a foreign national residing in Belgium who could prove his identity and who suffered from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment where there was no appropriate treatment in his country of origin, or in the country in which he resided, was entitled … Read More

Principles:

Under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a person is entitled to an effective remedy against a decision to remove him or her to his or her country of origin. Under Article 19(2) CFR, such a person may not be removed to a country where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In the light of caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, removal may be precluded in exceptional cases, where the humanitarian grounds are compelling. In order for an appeal against such a decision to be effective, it may be necessary to provide the person concerned with a remedy having suspensive effect on the decision, and, in an appropriate case, to provide him or her with necessary medical treatment pending return.

Go Back

C-542/13 – M’bodj v Belgium

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Belgium
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-542/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:18 Dec 2014
Judge:Grand Chamber: V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, M. Ilešič, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), T. von Danwitz, J.-C. Bonichot and K. Jürimäe, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, M. Berger and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Mauritania
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160947&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=225679
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Under Belgian law, a foreign national residing in Belgium who could prove his identity and who suffered from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment where there was no appropriate treatment in his country of origin or in the country in which he resided was entitled … Read More

Principles:

Likely deterioration in the health of a proposed deportee on the basis that adequate medical treatment would not be available in his or her country of origin will not amount to “serious harm” within the meaning of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) as implemented by the EU (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013, and therefore will not entitle him or her to subsidiary protection, unless it can be shown that such treatment exists there and that he would be denied it.

The Qualification Directive precludes the Member States from introducing or retaining provisions granting subsidiary protection status provided for in it to a third country national who is suffering from a serious illness simply on the ground that there is a risk that that person’s health would deteriorate as a result of the fact that adequate treatment is not available in his or her country of origin.

Go Back

Case C-604/12 – HN v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-604/12
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:08 May 2014
Judge:CJEU Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Fourth Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de9f0aeac3f43442be9521a6d25246fc25.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4ObxqOe0?text=&docid=151965&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=222399
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant purported to make a stand-alone application for subsidiary protection in Ireland in 2009. The Minister for Justice declined to determine it, on the basis that the applicant had not applied for and been refused a declaration of refugee status, which the Minister said was a condition precedent to his being eligible to apply for subsidiary protection under the … Read More

Principles:

In Irish law, a person who wishes to apply for subsidiary protection must first apply for, and be refused, a declaration of refugee status. This is not prohibited by Directive 2004/83/EC (the “Qualification Directive”) nor by any general rule of EU law, such as the right to good administration.

A person should, however, be able to submit applications for refugee status and subsidiary protection simultaneously. In the event that he or she is refused a declaration of refugee status, the application for subsidiary protection will then be considered and determined.

Go Back

ME v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 145
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Mar 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Iran
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/39a5323f-6726-4a1e-8958-463d559c1f66/2014_IEHC_145_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, an Iranian, claimed to fear persecution in Iran on account of his political activities and because he had renounced his Muslim faith. He said that he had been arrested and detained on numerous occasions and badly beaten and tortured. He said that his brother, who was politically active, had been executed in 1999, and that he himself … Read More

Principles:

When considering whether an applicant travelling to Ireland would have understood announcements made on an aeroplane in relation to its destination, regard should be had to his or her language skills. 

Adverse findings made on the basis of documentation used by an applicant during his or her travel should be based on a clear understanding of the nature of that documentation.

Credibility findings should be based on core matters pertaining to the claim, as opposed to matters like travel, passport possession and border crossing which may not necessarily be related to the core claim.

Go Back

SJ v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 108
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:07 Mar 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Protection (Subsidiary)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/72b37f7f-862c-45c3-8eaf-8db19bea4c94/2014_IEHC_108_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a national of Nigeria, issued proceedings in which he sought inter alia to challenge decisions of the Minister for Justice refusing his applications for subsididary protection and leave to remain, which culminated in the making of a deportation order in respect of him. A telescoped hearing date of the 26 February, 2014, was assigned and the case … Read More

Principles:

An applicant who wishes to amend a statement of grounds in judicial review must move such an application timeously and, if he does not, set out an explanation for the delay in doing so. Where an applicant waits, without any reasonable explanation, until the case is scheduled for hearing before moving an application to amend, it is likely to be refused by the court, as to grant it would likely prejudice the opposing party.

Go Back

PBN (DR Congo) v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2014] IESC 9
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2014
Judge:Fennelly, McKechnie and Laffoy JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Subsidiary), Refoulement
Country of Origin:Democratic Republic of Congo
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/F96AA1C4318CE08E80257C8A004F7302

Facts: The applicant, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”), was the subject of a deportation order and she sought unsuccessfully to re-enter the asylum process by making an application pursuant to Section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996. Her application was refused and she issued judicial review proceedings seeking leave to challenge the refusal, contending that the … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant makes out an arguable case that an injunction should be granted to enjoin deportation, then the balance of convenience may favour granting an injunction pending the hearing of a leave application seeking to challenge the validity of a deportation order where a credible basis has been shown on the evidence that there is a real risk of significant harm to the applicant if he or she were deported pending that hearing.

Where evidential conflicts are raised on the documents exhibited in the course of an injunction application, the Supreme Court should not attempt to resolve them on an interlocutory application, that being a matter for the High Court at the hearing of the application for leave.

Go Back

Case C-285/12 – Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

adminLeave a Comment


Diakite
Respondent/Defendant:Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-285/12
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:30 Jan 2014
Judge:CJEU, Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Fourth Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Guinea
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=147061&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=173363
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant, a native of Guinea, applied twice for asylum and subsidiary protection in Belgium, being unsuccessful on both occasions. The Commissaire Général’s refusal to grant subsidiary protection was based on the finding that there was no situation of indiscriminate violence or armed conflict in the applicant’s country of origin. The applicant appealed against those decisions and the Belgian Conseil … Read More

Principles:

When deciding whether an “internal armed conflict” existed within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, an autonomous interpretation was required, independent of the meaning of that concept in the Geneva Conventions.

The usual meaning of that phrase in everyday language was to be considered, account being taken of the context in which it occurred and the purposes of the rules of which it was part. The usual meaning of the phrase in everyday language concerned a situation in which a state’s armed forces confronted one or more armed groups, or in which two or more armed groups confronted each other.

The existence of an internal armed conflict was a cause for granting subsidiary protection only where such confrontations were exceptionally considered to create a serious and individual threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection for the purposes of Article 15(c).

Go Back

BM v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 25
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Jan 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Refoulement, Refugee
Country of Origin:Cameroon
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f8acc827-ed7e-459a-a23b-ca399c21a431/2014_IEHC_25_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant, a national of Cameroon, sought ex parte leave to seek judicial review of decisions of the Minister for Justice refusing to revoke a refusal of subsidiary protection a further refusal to permit the applicant to make a further application for subsidiary protection. The applicant had applied for revocation of the refusal of his subsidiary protection application 21 … Read More

Principles:

The principle of equivalence does not mean that equal remedies have to be available for administrative decisions which have their origins in European law.

The Minister for Justice is only obliged to consider material furnished in support of an application for revocation of a refusal of subsidiary protection if he decides to engage with the merits of such an application.

Refusal of subsidiary protection will not breach prohibition on refoulement as that matter is considered subsequently by the Minister

Go Back

HN (Nawaz) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment


Nawaz
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2012] IESC 58
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2012
Judge:Supreme Court (Fennelly J, O'Donnell J, McKechnie J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Geneva Convention & Protocol, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Third-Country National
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/85c26c9e-adaf-4910-8187-53a056c2c041/2012_IESC_58_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Pakistan and from the Swat Valley. He arrived in Ireland in 2003 on a student visa. He married an Irish national and was granted permission to remain in the State until 2005. The marriage ended and the Minister notified him that his permission to be in the State was not being renewed as … Read More

Principles:

The true question was whether the ‘Qualification Directive’ required Member States, in their implementing measures, to make it possible for a third country national to make an application for subsidiary protection without making any application for refugee status. 

In order to determine whether the Minister was obliged to consider the applicant’s application for subsidiary protection in the absence of a determination that he was not entitled to refugee status, it was necessary to establish whether it is compatible with the ‘Qualification Directive’ for Irish law to provide that an application for Subsidiary protection will not be considered unless the applicant has already applied for and been refused refugee status. 

For this purpose the Supreme Court referred the following question to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 TFEU:

“Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided for by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?”

Go Back