Mucaj v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] ScotCS CSOH_17 (03 February 2017)

Mucaj v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] ScotCS CSOH_17 (03 February 2017)

The six-month time limit for transfer under Article 29(1) of Dublin III was suspended by the Secretary of State's cancellation of removal directions, consistent with the purposive interpretation adopted in Miab v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The time limits in Article 29 regulate Member States' obligations and do not confer an enforceable individual right on the applicant in these circumstances. No prejudice was suffered by the applicant, and the petition is refused.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_17
Parties
Petitioner: Bahri Mucaj; Respondent: Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Dublin III Regulation, Asylum Procedure, Time Limits for Transfer, Effective Remedy Under EU Law, Suspension of Removal Directions
Immigration Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Dublin III Regulation Asylum Procedure Time Limits for Transfer Effective Remedy Under EU Law Suspension of Removal Directions

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bahri Mucaj

Petitioner

Advocate General for Scotland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the six-month time limit for transfer under Article 29(1) of Dublin III was breached
  2. 2 Whether suspension of removal directions by the Secretary of State suspends the Article 29(1) time limit
  3. 3 Whether Article 29(1) time limits confer individual rights enforceable by the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The six-month time limit for transfer under Article 29(1) of Dublin III was suspended by the Secretary of State's cancellation of removal directions, consistent with the purposive interpretation adopted in Miab v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The time limits in Article 29 regulate Member States' obligations and do not confer an enforceable individual right on the applicant in these circumstances. No prejudice was suffered by the applicant, and the petition is refused.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Respondent's first, third and fourth pleas-in-law upheld
  • Petitioner's pleas-in-law numbers 1, 2 and 5 repelled