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 |
Court of Appeal dismisses ten linked appeals and upholds the decision of the High Court refusing the challenges brought by the appellants to the first respondent’s refusal to grant them subsidiary protection, on the grounds that: (a) the absence of an appeal process at the time the impugned decisions were taken cannot, of itself, constitute grounds upon which to vitiate the decisions on the basis of an asserted breach of the right to be heard; (b) there was no basis upon which to hold that the trial judge erred in failing to quash the subsidiary protection decisions on the ground that the appellants’ right to be heard was breached; (c) there was no basis upon which the trial judge’s rejection of the appellants’ effective remedy argument can be set aside in circumstances where there is very clear jurisprudence that judicial review constitutes an effective remedy; and (d) the principle of effectiveness was not so undermined by the failure to afford an opportunity to apply for subsidiary protection at the same time as when applying for asylum to justify a finding that the trial judge erred in not granting relief.
Faherty J (nem diss): 10 linked appeals of decisions of the High Court refusing to grant their challenges to the decisions of the first respondent to grant them subsidiary protection - Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, O.J. L304/12, 30.9.2004 (“the Qualifications Directive”) - this Directive provides for the establishment of minimum standards for qualification for refugee status or subsidiary protection - European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518/2006) ("the 2006 Regulations") - the 2006 Regulations confined the ability to apply for subsidiary protection to those persons whose applications for asylum had been refused - each of the appellants in the within appeals was the recipient of a negative decision of the first respondent in respect of refugee status - whether the impugned subsidiary protection decisions should be quashed for breach of the audi alteram partem rule - whether judicial review vindicated the appellants’ right to an effective remedy in regard to the refusals of subsidiary protection - whether the regime in place under which the appellants applied for subsidiary protection was compatible with EU law - appeals dismissed.
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.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now