Case summaries

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.

Refugee status was granted to the applicants (parents) because of their advocacy in Afghanistan for democracy, separation of state and religion, equality between men and women, and their membership of and support for the party “Comprehensive movement for democracy and progress in Afghanistan”. Refugee status was granted to their children because of their membership of a particular social group of “family”.

Threats by political opponents are to be considered as imminent persecution by non-State actors according to Art. 60 (1) sentence 4 (c) of the Residence Act in conjunction with Art. 6 (c) of the Qualification Directive. The Afghan State is unwilling and unable to grant protection against such persecution by non-State actors (Art 7 of the Qualification Directive).

This Judicial Review concerned the way in which the Minister for Justice should assess applications for subsidiary protection and, in particular, whether the duty to ‘co-operate’ with the applicant  referred to in Art 4.1 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC means that the decision maker must communicate matters of concern to the applicant before making a final decision. As there appeared to be a conflict between the Irish and Dutch interpretations of Art 4.1, and uncertainty as to the true meaning of the phrase ‘in co-operation with’ the Court (Hogan J) referred a question to the CJEU.

To not give the applicant some additional time to submit documents that the authorities are already aware of which may be relevant for the asylum application is a violation of Art 4.1 of the Qualification Directive.

The High Court refused leave to apply for judicial review of a deportation order on the grounds that the decision of the Minister for Justice was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal must make a best interest of the child determination in considering an asylum appeal made by an unaccompanied minor. Further, that although the Secretary of State has a duty to trace the applicant’s family under the Reception Conditions Directive, this duty exists independently of the obligation to appropriately consider an asylum claim. Therefore the Secretary of State’s failure to act on the basis of the duty is not a ground on which an asylum appeal could be allowed.  

The Iranian applicants’ asylum claim was rejected by the authorities as they were not found credible. As a result of this finding, the authorities did not consider their account in light of the country of origin information on Iran. The court quashed the decision and granted refugee status to the family reasoning that the authorities are obliged to carry out a thorough and complete fact assessment.

It was found that the contradictions in the applicants' account were not relevant from the point of view of international protection. The court also ruled that the authority is obliged to clarify misunderstandings at hearings, at the same time applicants have to be given the opportunity to justify contradictions and incoherencies in their statements.

The existence of a risk of persecution in the country of origin should be assessed on the basis of information concerning the country of origin rather than on the basis of the credibility of the asylum seeker.

This case concerns a revocation decision, which turned on the meaning of Art 14.3(b) of the Qualification Directive (in particular the word “decisive” in that Article). The Court relied on an analysis of the French and Italian translations of Art 14.3, which the court felt were not worded as precisely as the English text.

The case involves consideration by the Supreme Court of Ireland of whether or not the Minister for Justice has a discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection from a person who has a deportation order made prior to the 20.10.2006, the date on which the law transposing the Qualification Directive came in to effect in Ireland. The Court overturned a decision of the High Court and stated that the Minister for Justice does not have discretion to consider an application for subsidiary protection from a person with a deportation order prior to the 20.10.2006.