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

Mahmood v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 600
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Oct 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Third Country, Union Citizen, Visa
Country of Origin:United Kingdom/Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/af4577cb-1ce2-4d85-98c8-0ef1889462de/2016_IEHC_600_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an EU citizen who intended to move to the State and wanted a visa for his wife to allow her accompany him. The rights asserted by the applicants arose pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC (“the Citizens’ Directive”) and in particular article 5(2) which provided that such visas should be issued “as soon as possible and on the … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Mahmood establishes that delays of several months in the determination of visa applications by non-national family member of EU citizens to allow them accompany the EU nationals to the State are in breach of EU law, notwithstanding the unprecedented surge in the numbers of such applications which pose logistical difficulties for the Minister. Generalised concerns as to potential abuse of EU Treaty Rights are not sufficient to justify such delays.

Go Back