H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others

Last updated

H.N. v Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameH.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others (also referred to as Nawaz v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others)
Citation(s)[2012] IESC 58
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Case opinions
The Supreme Court referred for preliminary ruling of the CJEU a question with respect to Ireland's implementation of the Qualification Directive.
Court membership
Judges sittingFennelly J., O'Donnell J., McKechnie J., Clarke J., MacMenamin J.
Keywords
Asylum; Protection (Subsidiary); Protection Status; Refugee; Third-Country National

H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others, [2012] IESC 58; [2013] 1 IR 142 (also referred to as Nawaz vMinister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others), is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): [1]

Contents

Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law? [1] [2]

Background

The applicant was a Pakistani national. He arrived in Ireland in 2003 on a student visa. He married an Irish national and was granted permission to remain in the State until 2005. However, the marriage broke down. He was notified by the respondent Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2006 that his permission to remain in the State would not be renewed. [1] The marital breakdown also affected the applicant's legal entitlement in the State. [1]

In 2006, the Minister notified the Applicant of his intention to make an order, pursuant to statutory powers, for his deportation; the Applicant then brought separate proceedings against the Minister and the State, claiming that the legislative provision for deportation was unconstitutional. [1] [3]

The applicant sought to apply for subsidiary protection (a status that allows someone who does not qualify as a refugee to stay in Ireland and be given many of the same rights as an Irish citizen) [4] without first applying for refugee status. [1] He did not at anytime apply for asylum in Ireland but explained that as he did not have a fear of persecution as stated by the Refugee Convention (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group), therefore, he was not a refugee. [1]

However, he claimed that he was still a victim of fear due to the indiscriminate violence in Pakistan, particularly in the Swat Valley where his family resided. [1] He claimed that returning would amount to a risk of suffering serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the ‘Qualification Directive’ (Directive 2004/83/EC)(this Directive has subsequently been amended by Directive 2011/95/EU). [1] [5] In 2009, the Applicant made a request to the Minister to consider his subsidiary protection claim, believing that he is qualified for consideration pursuant to the Qualification Directive. He stated that there are "two million displaced homeless survivors of the Taliban Reign of Terror", [1] which had been subjected to unrivaled acts of "barbarous savagery and inhuman cruelty" [1] by their oppressors. [1]

He further claimed that the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (the ’Protection Regulations, the Irish legislation giving effect to the Qualification Directive) was incompatible with and failed to properly transpose the Qualification Directive in requiring him to make an application for refugee status "that he knew to be false" [1] before he could make an application for subsidiary protection. [1]

On 23 June 2009, the Minister replied and stated that an application for subsidiary protection status was subject to the applicant being refused refugee status. Since there was no refugee application made by the applicant, a subsidiary protection application could not be considered. [1]

Issue before the Court

The issue before the Supreme Court was "whether the Qualification Directive requires Member States, in their implementing measures, to make it possible for a third country national to make an application for subsidiary protection status without making any application for refugee status". [1] As was noted in the court, "Ireland is the only Member State of the European Union which has not adopted a single administrative procedure applying Council Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status”. [1] The question before the court focused on whether an applicant for subsidiary protection must first apply and be rejected for refugee status, before applying for subsidiary protection in order for his/her application to be considered. [2]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that in Irish law the applicant could not make an application for subsidiary protection without first applying for, and then being refused refugee status. As a result, the applicant needed to have a failed asylum seeker's status before he could proceed in making an application for subsidiary protection. [1]

Based on the issue in question, on the implementation measures of the Qualification Directive requirement, the Supreme Court referred the following question to the CJEU for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 TFEU:

Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided for by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law? [1]

Judgment of the European Court of Justice and subsequent developments

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) (Fourth Chamber) within the CJEU responded to the Supreme Court's question in the negative on 8 May 2014, noting that:

Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification of status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration do not preclude a national procedural rule, such as that of issuing the main proceedings, under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused, provided that, first, it is possible to submit the application for refugee status and the application for subsidiary protection at the same time, and, second, the national procedural rule does not give rise to a situation which the application for subsidiary protection is considered only after an unreasonable length of time, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court. [6] [7] [8]

The ECJ held that the Directive 2004/83 did not preclude a national procedural rule, which provided that an application for subsidiary protection needed to be made after a prior refusal of an application for refugee status. [1] However, the national procedural rules applies provided that the application for refugee status and/or application for subsidiary protection are submitted at the same time (where applicable), and not in a situation where an application for subsidiary protection is considered after an unreasonable length of time. [7]

The case returned to the Supreme Court. The court held that as the applicant had not made an application for refugee status, he count not argue that it was not possible to make a simultaneous application in 2009. [6] Therefore, he had not established that the Regulation was not in compliance with the requirements of the Directive as set out by the ECJ. An award for damages was not considered for the applicant, as the delay was caused by the proceedings that the applicant himself commenced, and which failed in the consequence of those proceedings. [1]

The Court dismissed the appeal. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dublin Regulation</span> European Union (EU) law regarding political asylum

The Dublin Regulation is a European Union (EU) law that determines which EU Member State is responsible for the examination of an application for asylum, submitted by persons seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union. It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorised entrants to the EU. The Dublin Regulation aims to "determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]" and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Database Directive</span> Directive of the European Union regarding copyright law

The Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases is a directive of the European Union in the field of copyright law, made under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome. It harmonises the treatment of databases under copyright law and the sui generis right for the creators of databases which do not qualify for copyright.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Representation in Cyprus is an office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) opened in August 1974 upon the request of the Government of Cyprus and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UNHCR Representation in Cyprus was designated as Coordinator of the United Nations Humanitarian Assistance for Cyprus. UNHCR was also responsible upon the request of the Cyprus Government to examine applications for refugee status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Max Schrems</span> Austrian author and privacy activist

Maximilian Schrems is an Austrian activist, lawyer, and author who became known for campaigns against Facebook for its privacy violations, including violations of European privacy laws and the alleged transfer of personal data to the US National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the NSA's PRISM program. Schrems is the founder of NOYB – European Center for Digital Rights.

Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne is a 2018 case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that affirmed residency rights in EU countries, to the spouse of an EU citizen who is exercising their right to freedom of movement and if the marriage was legally performed in an EU member state.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 107, [2002] 1 ILRM 16 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that refusal of an application for asylum may constitute a sufficient basis for the government to order the applicant's deportation.

<i>Dimbo v Minister for Justice</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

The case of Dimbo v Minister for Justice[2008] IESC 26; [2008] 27 ILT 231; [2008] 5 JIC 0101 was a Supreme Court that held that when deciding to make a deportation order in relation to the parents of an Irish born citizen under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the state must consider facts that are specific to the individual child, his or her age, current educational progress, development and opportunities and his/her attachment to the community.

<i>Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A.M.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IESC 65, [2015] 1 I.L.R.M. 170 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that s.18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister for Justice to evaluate the financial burden that a refugee's dependents may put on the State, whilst determining an application for entry.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>CC v Minister for Justice</i> Irish Supreme Court case

CC v Minister for Justice [2016] 2 IR 680; [2016] IESC 48 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed an appeal by the State to issue a deportation order against a Malawian family who were seeking asylum in Ireland. In this case, the Court had to reexamine a previously established test with respect to whether an order for deportation could be granted where an appeal was pending within the courts system. Ultimately, the Court decided that there was no need for refinements as the general principle identified in that test can be applied across a wide number of cases.

<i>Okunade v. Minister for Justice & Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Okunade v. Minister for Justice & Others[2012] IESC 49 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the disruption to family life was sufficient injustice to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain deportation while the applicants challenged pending deportation orders. The case had become moot by the time that the appeal reached the Supreme Court but proceeded as a test case due to the because the issue of interlocutory injunctions arises in a significant number of Supreme Court cases.

<i>Lobe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Lobe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2003] IESC 3 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the applicant minors enjoy, in general terms, the right not to be expelled form the state—a right subject to limited qualification. Furthermore, the court found that applicant minors enjoy a constitutional right to be in the care and company of other family members, including their siblings in the state. The consequences of this ruling were significant in that it prohibits the state from deporting the parents and other family members of minors who are applying for asylum until the process is resolved. The case established the "primacy" of the family unit. However, the ruling also resulted in the finding that an Irish citizen who is a minor could, nevertheless, be deported if their non-national parents were deported.

C-821/19 was a case decided by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on 16 November 2021. The CJEU ruled that Hungary had violated EU law by restricting access to asylum and criminalizing assistance to asylum seekers.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others, [2012] IESC 58; [2013] 1 IR 142
  2. 1 2 Brazil, Patricia (2012). "Asylum and Immigration Law". Annual Review of Irish Law. 26 (1): 8–36 via Westlaw.ie.
  3. Biehler, Hilary; McGrath, Declan; Egan McGrath, Emily (2018). Delany and McGrath on Civil Procedure (4th ed.). Round Hall.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. "The asylum system in Ireland". Department of Justice and Equality.
  5. "Who qualifies for international protection". European Commission.
  6. 1 2 "Nawaz v MJELR: State can refuse application for subsidiary protection where no application was made for asylum". Scoirlblog.
  7. 1 2 3 Nawaz v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & anor [2014] IESC 30
  8. H.N. v. Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform (Case C-604/12)