MM -v- Minister for Justice & Equality & ors [2018] IESC 10 (14 February 2018)

MM -v- Minister for Justice & Equality & ors [2018] IESC 10 (14 February 2018)

The Supreme Court held that, in the Irish context at the relevant time, the right to be heard for subsidiary protection applications under EU law does not require an oral hearing or adversarial process as a rule; a written procedure is sufficient provided it allows the applicant to make their case, and information from the asylum process may be considered. Only in exceptional cases where facts cannot be determined on paper would an interview be required. The High Court's order quashing the Minister's decision was set aside and the application for judicial review dismissed.

Citation
[2018] IESC 10
Parties
Applicant/respondent: MM; Respondent/appellant: Minister for Justice and Equality; Respondents/appellants: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision, Following ECJ References
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Right to Be Heard, Procedural Fairness, International Protection, Judicial Review
Immigration Law European Union Law Administrative Law Subsidiary Protection Right to Be Heard Procedural Fairness International Protection Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM

Applicant/respondent

Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/appellant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/appellants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision, Following ECJ References

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right to be heard under EU law requires an oral hearing for subsidiary protection applications in a bifurcated Irish system
  2. 2 Whether reliance on prior asylum credibility findings is permissible in subsidiary protection decisions
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's written procedure satisfied procedural fairness requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, in the Irish context at the relevant time, the right to be heard for subsidiary protection applications under EU law does not require an oral hearing or adversarial process as a rule; a written procedure is sufficient provided it allows the applicant to make their case, and information from the asylum process may be considered. Only in exceptional cases where facts cannot be determined on paper would an interview be required. The High Court's order quashing the Minister's decision was set aside and the application for judicial review dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of certiorari made by the High Court set aside
  • Application for judicial review dismissed