Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court orders reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, concerning whether Ireland's procedure for subsidiary protection complied with European Union law (the Qualification Directive), in light of the fact that an application could only be made if the applicant had been refused refugee status.
Judicial review – Pakistani national did not seek asylum prior to applying for subsidiary protection – the Minister is not obliged to consider an application for subsidiary protection where there has not been an asylum application – whether the refusal to consider an application for subsidiary protection in the absence of an application for asylum was consistent with the Qualification Directive - Applicant entered Ireland lawfully on a student visa – he married an Irish citizen and was granted permission to remain – after the marriage ended his permission was not renewed – applied for subsidiary protection – claimed he did not fear persecution for a Convention reason – feared indiscriminate violence in Pakistan – informed that the Minister would not consider his application for subsidiary protection in the absence of an application for asylum – judicial review refused by the High Court – single administrative procedure – Procedures Directive – Qualification directive is not concerned with procedures – no procedural obligation on the Minister to accept the application – right to good administration – applicant would be forced to make statements which he knew to be false to go through the asylum process – preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.