MG v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 701 (21 December 2020)

MG v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 701 (21 December 2020)

Applicant failed to establish irrationality or breach of fair procedures in reliance on absence of medical report, failed to show risk of breach of fundamental rights in UK, failed to make formal Article 17 application to Second Respondent, and neither EU nor Irish law requires a system for Article 17 applications or additional remedies beyond judicial review.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 701
Parties
Applicant: MG; First Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice; Third Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
International Protection, Dublin III Regulation, Article 17 Discretion, Transfer of Asylum Seekers, Effective Remedy, Fair Procedures
Immigration Administrative Law European Union Law International Protection Dublin III Regulation Article 17 Discretion Transfer of Asylum Seekers Effective Remedy +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MG

Applicant

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adverse reliance was placed on absence of medical report
  2. 2 Whether transfer decision breached fundamental rights
  3. 3 Whether Article 17 discretion was properly exercised

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish irrationality or breach of fair procedures in reliance on absence of medical report, failed to show risk of breach of fundamental rights in UK, failed to make formal Article 17 application to Second Respondent, and neither EU nor Irish law requires a system for Article 17 applications or additional remedies beyond judicial review.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Order for Respondents' costs against Applicant to be adjudicated in default of agreement