G.E. v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors [2018] IEHC 564 (15 October 2018)

G.E. v The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors [2018] IEHC 564 (15 October 2018)

The applicant failed to establish with sufficient plausibility that her military service in Israel would involve the commission of war crimes or acts condemned by international law, and did not avail herself of the procedure for obtaining conscientious objector status available under Israeli law. The tribunal's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 564
Parties
Applicant: G. E.; Respondent: The Refugee Appeals Tribunal; Respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Notice Party: The Refugee Applications Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; tribunal decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Status, Conscientious Objection, Military Service, Persecution, European Union Law, Judicial Review
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Refugee Status Conscientious Objection Military Service Persecution European Union Law +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. E.

Applicant

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Respondent

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

The Refugee Applications Commissioner

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant qualifies as a refugee due to conscientious objection to military service in Israel
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces persecution for political opinion under the Refugee Act 1996 and international instruments
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal applied the correct legal test and standard of proof under EU and domestic law

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish with sufficient plausibility that her military service in Israel would involve the commission of war crimes or acts condemned by international law, and did not avail herself of the procedure for obtaining conscientious objector status available under Israeli law. The tribunal's decision was not unreasonable or irrational and applied the correct legal test and standard of proof under domestic and EU law.

Court Disposition

Application refused; tribunal decision affirmed

Orders

  • Leave to seek judicial review granted
  • Application for extension of time granted