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

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

VJ (Moldova) v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 337
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Deportation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Deportation, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Return, Return Decision, Returnee
Country of Origin:Moldova
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cf2952a2-d160-46c2-a64b-d7680ae940c0/2012_IEHC_337_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Molova who applied for asylum in the State and was unsuccessful. He was also refused subsidiary protection and a deportation order was made against him. The applicant argued inter alia that the process by which the subsidiary protection scheme operated in Ireland with the deportation/leave to remain procedure was in breach of EU … Read More

Principles:

It is arguable that:

“By confining the right to apply for subsidiary protection to the circumstance in which the asylum seeker’s entitlement to remain lawfully in the State pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Refugee Act 1996, has expired and a decision has been taken to propose the deportation of the applicant under section 3(3) of the Immigration Act 1999, Regulation 4(1) of the 2006 Regulations in conjunction with s. 3 of the said Act of 1999, has the effect of imposing a precondition or disadvantage upon a subsidiary protection applicant which is ultra vires Council Directive 2004/83/EC of the 29th April, 2004, and is incompatible with general principles of European Union law.”

Go Back