Case summaries

Because the Asylum Court refused the appeal only one day after service of the ruling on the appointment of a legal advisor, the Applicant was not granted an appropriate period of time to use the legal advice and any representation in the proceedings and it was therefore made impossible for him to exercise his rights effectively in the proceedings.

M’s detention pending deportation, for over 2 years and 8 months, was processed without sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness and delay, resulting in four separate violations of the Convention.

Conversion to Christianity led to a re-examination of impediments to enforcement.

This was a decision on an injunction application in the course of judicial review proceedings challenging a subsidiary protection decision and deportation order on the basis of a failure by the Minister to cooperate with the applicant in processing the subsidiary protection application and that the failure to provide a mechanism of appeal against a refusal of subsidiary protection  breaches the principal of equivalence in European Union law in that the procedure under the (Irish) 2006 Regulations is inferior to that provided for in national law (the Refugee Act 1996 as amended) in respect of decisions on claims for asylum.

The (injunction) application was rejected on the basis that it was only since the requirements of the Procedures Directive, and, in particular, the deeming provision of its Annex 1, became effective in Irish law (in 2007) that the recommendation of the Commissioner fell to be considered as the first instance determination by a “determining authority” with an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Thus, insofar as the provisions of the 1996 Act can now be pointed to as providing a two-stage determination for an asylum application including a right to an effective remedy by way of appeal, it is only because of the manner in which the State has adapted the arrangements of the 1996 Act in order to comply with the requirements of the Procedures Directive for asylum (refugee) applications pursuant to Article 3.1. Furthermore, without a unified system for both applications the minimum procedural standards provide for in the Procedures Directive do not apply to a separate and discrete subsidiary protection application.

In relation to the ‘co-operation’ point the Court found that a claim of non-compliance with such a duty of “co-operation” or the principle audi alteram partem cannot be made as a purely academic point divorced from specific facts. The applicant in this case eschewed the need to identify any particular finding in the Subsidiary Protection determination which might have been corrected or altered had the applicant been consulted upon it.

Unlike the Procedures Directive, Article 4.1 of the Qualifications Directive refers to the duty of co-operation in respect of the “application for international protection,” that is, the claim to asylum and the claim to subsidiary protection. Article 14.2 of the Procedures Directive recognises, however, that the report of the personal interview with the applicant on which the decision of the determining authority on an asylum application is based, may be communicated to the asylum seeker after the decision has been adopted. The Court found that it would be inconsistent with these arrangements that the duty of cooperation in Article 4.1 should be construed as imposing on a determining authority a mandatory obligation to submit either the report or a draft decision in relation to a subsidiary protection application to an applicant for prior comment. Furthermore, the duty to co-operate provided for in Article 4.1only applies to those elements of the claim described in Article 4.2. These are, in effect, the basic facts and documents relating to the applicant’s personal history and to the basis of the claim and they are primarily considered and assessed in the asylum process including any appeal.

Right to remain arises the moment an alien indicates he would like to be granted asylum. This means that an alien, from that time onwards, cannot be refused access to the territory; he may be refused only 'further access', in other words 'actual further entry' to the territory.

Article 10 of Legislative Decree 25/2008 sets out guarantees for asylum seekers as regards procedural access according to which the asylum seeker should be informed not only of his rights and obligations during the procedure but also on the means and times available to him for his asylum application. In addition, section 4 provides for timely information to be given to the Applicant concerning the decision taken by the Territorial Commission. This should be provided in the first language indicated by the Applicant or in one of the four official languages.

This provision has to be respected for the procedure to be valid.

The asylum application of the applicant, a minor suing through her mother, had been deemed withdrawn. An application to have the asylum claim readmitted was refused by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The High Court refused to set aside the decision of the Minister. The applicant applied to the High Court for leave to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court, and/or a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The High Court refused both applications.

Insofaras the Federal Asylum Agency did not apply an age-appropriate standard when assessing the credibility of the minor Applicant and did not comply with the particular obligation to provide instruction and the duty of care applicable in the case of a minor, the authority committed a gross procedural error.

This case concerned service of the initial negative decision against an asylum application where the notice was served on the foreign applicant asylum seeker without specifying the language in which the applicant was informed of its content.  The court rejected an application for suspensive effect of the decision rejecting the asylum application in view of the pleas used by the applicant – of Palestinian origin – that he left his country for economic reasons, since there is no evidence that there is a risk of persecution should he return to Palestine, nor have any of the conditions for asylum on humanitarian grounds been met. The possible disruption to the lifestyle the applicant has created for himself whilst working in Greece does not constitute a reason to suspend any of the acts which form part of the asylum application examination procedure.