Ireland - High Court, 24 April 2008, F.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 107

Facts:

The applicants had come to Ireland and made unsuccessful applications for refugee status on the basis a fear of religious persecution and FGM. The applicants subsequently applied for subsidiary protection enclosing certain country of origin information and medical reports and were refused. One of the applicants, a minor, suffered from a leg injury which made it difficult for her to walk for more than a short distance without pain. The applicants argued that the decision of the Minister in refusing their application was made in breach of their rights, in that the procedure that must be applied is equivalent to the statutory mechanism for determining refugee status.

Decision & reasoning:

In referring to the Irish implementing measures that had transposed the Qualification Directive, the Court noted that the principles of protection contained in these measures are aimed against human action and not against illness or natural disaster; the Court was not entitled to construe the relevant definitions outside these parameters and to bring them into the realm of health or welfare.

Since those seeking subsidiary protection can be returned to an area of their country of origin under international control, the situation giving rise to the need for international protection under the Qualification Directive must be serious. The fact that such control by another country, or by an international organisation, is contemplated emphasises that the Directive is concerned with harm that may occur to people returned to countries where a serious societal breakdown has occurred. The Directive also obliges member states to provide protection against an individual threat of execution, torture or serious assault, but only where there is no safe place within the country of origin where reasonable measures of protection through criminal justice are in place.

The primary focus for deciding upon an application for subsidiary protection under the Qualifications Directive is on obtaining reliable and up to date country of origin information. It is not necessary for the Minister, in making such a decision, to engage in a dialogue with an applicant.

The concept of subsidiary protection does not apply to individual circumstances concerned with the commission of crime unless the individual circumstances of an applicant in the light of country of origin information leads to the conclusion that a state of affairs exists in respect of which neither national protection where they live in their country of origin, nor internal relocation, is available to them.

If substantially new material is put forward in a subsidiary protection application it must be given a fair and reasoned consideration.

Nothing in the Procedures Directive requires that the decision as to subsidiary protection should be the same as that for the refugee process. 

Outcome:

The reliefs sought by the applicants by way of judicial review were refused.