J.M.O. -v- The Refugee Applications Commissioner & Ors [2014] IEHC 467 (22 August 2014)

J.M.O. -v- The Refugee Applications Commissioner & Ors [2014] IEHC 467 (22 August 2014)

The applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if transferred to Slovakia. The Commissioner properly considered all relevant evidence and submissions, including medical reports and country information, and exercised discretion under Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation. There was no cogent evidence of systemic deficiencies or risk of refoulement in Slovakia, and the presumption of compliance by Slovakia with EU and international obligations was not rebutted.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 467
Parties
Applicant: J. M. O.; First Respondent: The Refugee Applications Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Asylum Procedure, Dublin II Regulation, Non Refoulement, Article 3 ECHR, Discretion Under Article 3(2), Family Rights Under Article 8 ECHR
Immigration Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Asylum Procedure Dublin II Regulation Non Refoulement Article 3 ECHR Discretion Under Article 3(2) +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. M. O.

Applicant

The Refugee Applications Commissioner

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of the applicant to Slovakia under the Dublin II Regulation breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner failed to properly exercise discretion under Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faces a real risk of refoulement or inhuman/degrading treatment in Slovakia

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if transferred to Slovakia. The Commissioner properly considered all relevant evidence and submissions, including medical reports and country information, and exercised discretion under Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation. There was no cogent evidence of systemic deficiencies or risk of refoulement in Slovakia, and the presumption of compliance by Slovakia with EU and international obligations was not rebutted.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review previously granted is discharged
  • Interlocutory injunction restraining transfer to Slovakia is lifted