M (M) v Min for Justice and Others (No 2)

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Hogan
Judgment Date05 September 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] IEHC 346
Date05 September 2011
Docket Number[No.8 J.R./2011]

[2011] IEHC 346

THE HIGH COURT

[No.8 J.R./2011]
M (M) v Min for Justice & Ors (No 2)

BETWEEN

M. M.
APPLICANT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (No.2)
RESPONDENTS
Abstract:

Immigration - Asylum - Deportation - Preliminary reference - Obligation to communicate the outcome of the proceedings - Urgent reference request - Balance of convenience - Council Directive 2004/83/EC

Facts: The applicant sought an injunction to retrain a proposed deportation to Rwanda. The applicant contended that Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC, the Qualification Directive, cast upon Member States an obligation to communicate with an applicant for international protection during the course of the assessment procedure. A request for an urgent preliminary reference to the Court of Justice also accompanied with question, which had been refused. The Court considered the application of interlocutory principles to the question posed, as to whether a fair question had been raised and what the balance of convenience was in the proceedings.

Held by Hogan J. that the Court would grant the interlocutory relief sought restraining the deportation of the applicant pending the outcome of the preliminary reference to the Court of Justice. A request would also be made for an accelerated hearing of the reference, the refusal of the accelerated request notwithstanding.

Reporter: E.F.

Mr. Justice Hogan
1

This application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the proposed deportation of the applicant to Rwanda arises in somewhat unusual circumstances. While this judgment should really be read in conjunction with my earlier judgment in this matter (MM v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General, High Court, 18th May 2011), the gist of these proceedings is that the applicant is a Rwandan refugee of Tutsi ethnicity who has unsuccessfully sought asylum in Ireland. He has contended that if returned to his home state he may be prosecuted before a military court for openly criticising the manner in which investigations into the 1994 genocide were being carried out.

2

Mr. M. obtained a visa in order to pursue a course of post-graduate legal study. He arrived in Ireland in 2006 and later graduated with an LL.M. from the Law Faculty in NUI, Galway in November, 2007. Mr. M. applied for asylum in May 2008, but this was ultimately rejected by the Refugee Appeal Tribunal in October 2008. He then applied for subsidiary protection, but this was refused by a decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 24th September, 2008.

3

Mr. M. then applied for leave to apply for judicial review and leave was granted by Cooke J. on 18th January, 2011. The substantive application was subsequently heard by me and I decided to refer one single question arising from the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC ("the Qualification Directive") to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 267TFEU. In essence that question asks whether the obligation cast upon Member States by Article 4(1) to decide such applications in co-operation with the applicant means that the authorities of the Member States are under a duty to communicate with an applicant for international protection during the course of the assessment of an application. Specifically, it is contended by the applicant that in the event of a proposed decision which is adverse to an applicant this duty of co-operation means that the authorities are obliged to supply a draft decision in advance to such applicant for his or her comments and that, as this did not occur, the decision on his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • SJ v Minister for Justice & Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 10 Octubre 2017
    ...requirement may be dispenses with in the procedure relating to the application for subsidiary protection." 75 M.M. v. MJELR (No. 2) [2011] IEHC 346 (Unreported, High Court, 5th September 2011) was a judgment on an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the proposed deporta......
  • M (M) v Min for Justice and Others (No 3)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 Enero 2013
    ...C-277/2011) (Unrep, ECJ, 22/11/2012); MM v. Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 547, (Unrep, Hogan J, 18/5/2011); MM v Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 346, (Unrep, Hogan J, 5/9/2011); NN v Minister for Justice [2012] IEHC 499, (Unrep, Clark J, 28/11/2012); Okunade v Minister for Justice [2012......
  • Afolabi v Min for Justice and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 Mayo 2012
    ...FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP COOKE 12.10.2011 2011 IEHC 381 2011/7/1573 M (M) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS (NO.2) UNREP HOGAN 5.9.2011 2011/34/9374 2011 IEHC 346 EEC DIR 2004/83 ART 4.1 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S11 L (S) [NIGERIA] v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP COOKE 6.10.2011 2011/31/8496 2011 IEHC 370 C......
  • Z (S) (Pakistan) v Min for Justice and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 Enero 2012
    ...(EX TEMPORE) TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 267 M (M) v MIN FOR JUSTICE (NO 2) UNREP HOGAN 5.9.2011 2011/34/9374 2011 IEHC 346 IMMIGRATION LAW Subsidiary protection Deportation order - Fear of persecution - Religious grounds - Risk of serious harm - Right to effective r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT