M.A.H. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2017] IEHC 462

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

O'Regan J.

[2017 No. 506 J.R.]

BETWEEN
M.A.H.
APPLICANT
AND
THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Art. 31.2 of the Geneva Convention, 1951 – Reg. (EU) No. 604/2013 (‘Dublin III’) – Legality of Regulation – Right of asylum seeker to choose place of asylum

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O'Regan delivered on the 17th day of July, 2017
1

This judgment is confined to so much of the applicant's application for leave as seeks a declaration that Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 26th of June, 2013 is invalid.

2

This Regulation, known as Dublin III introduced a number of changes to the prior Regulation (No. 343/2003) both of which are for the purposes of establishing the criteria and mechanism for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national or a Stateless person.

3

The relevant criteria are set forth in Chapter 3 of Dublin III which sets out a hierarchy as to criteria to be applied in determining the Member State responsible. In the instant matter, the applicant had applied for asylum in the United Kingdom in 2009 and in Northern Ireland in 2014. He was refused on both occasions. On the 29th of August, 2016 the applicant who had arrived in the State applied for asylum here, however, on the 17th of November, 2016 ORAC notified the applicant that the UK was responsible under the Dublin III criteria. This notification was the subject matter of an appeal on the 1st of December, 2016 and following an oral hearing on the 30th of March, 2017 the first named respondent confirmed the Commissioners decision that the applicant's application for refugee status was one which would properly be examined in the UK pursuant to Dublin III, by decision of 11th May, 2017

4

The applicant's contention that Dublin III is invalid is based on the argument that it unlawfully removes a right to choose the country in which a given applicant might apply for asylum as provided for by the Geneva Convention of the 28th of July, 1951 and the Protocol on the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL