H. & Anor -v- MJELR [2007] IEHC 277 (27 July 2007)

H. & Anor -v- MJELR [2007] IEHC 277 (27 July 2007)

The Directive and Regulations do not confer an automatic right to apply for subsidiary protection on persons subject to deportation orders made and notified before 10 October 2006. However, the Minister retains a discretion under Regulation 4(2) to consider such applications, particularly where new facts or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 277
Parties
Applicant: N. H.; Applicant: T. D.; Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Applications for judicial review granted in part.
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Deportation Orders, Refugee Status, Non Refoulement, Implementation of EU Directives
Immigration Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Subsidiary Protection Deportation Orders Refugee Status Non Refoulement Implementation of EU Directives

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. H.

Applicant

T. D.

Applicant

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants subject to deportation orders made prior to 10 October 2006 are entitled to apply for subsidiary protection under the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 and Council Directive 2004/83/EC.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister has discretion or an obligation to consider such applications where new facts or circumstances arise after the deportation order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Directive and Regulations do not confer an automatic right to apply for subsidiary protection on persons subject to deportation orders made and notified before 10 October 2006. However, the Minister retains a discretion under Regulation 4(2) to consider such applications, particularly where new facts or circumstances arise after the deportation order. The Minister's refusal to consider the applications without considering the exercise of this discretion was incorrect.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review granted in part.

Orders

  • Certiorari granted quashing the Minister's refusal to consider the applications for subsidiary protection.
  • Mandamus granted directing the Minister to consider whether to exercise discretion under Regulation 4(2) in light of any new facts or circumstances.