MM -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & ors [2011] IEHC 547 (18 May 2011)

MM -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & ors [2011] IEHC 547 (18 May 2011)

Given the conflicting interpretations of Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive, particularly in light of the Dutch Council of State's decision suggesting a broader duty of cooperation, the matter should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. There is no binding Irish authority requiring such a reference to be refused, and the issue is of general importance.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 547
Parties
Applicant: M. M.; Respondent: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reference to Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) Under Article 267 Tfeu; Proceedings Stayed
Outcome
Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union; proceedings stayed.
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Interpretation of EU Directives, Fair Procedures, Judicial Review, International Protection
Immigration Law European Union Law Administrative Law Subsidiary Protection Interpretation of EU Directives Fair Procedures Judicial Review International Protection

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. M.

Applicant

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reference to Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) Under Article 267 Tfeu; Proceedings Stayed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC requires Member States to provide applicants for subsidiary protection with the results of the assessment before a final decision is made, to allow them to address negative aspects.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the conflicting interpretations of Article 4(1) of the Qualification Directive, particularly in light of the Dutch Council of State's decision suggesting a broader duty of cooperation, the matter should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. There is no binding Irish authority requiring such a reference to be refused, and the issue is of general importance.

Court Disposition

Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union; proceedings stayed.

Orders

  • Question referred to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU regarding the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC.
  • Proceedings stayed pending outcome of the reference.