Court Of Jurist Gives Judgment On Irish Physical Care For For Determining Claims For Subsidiary Protection

Shauna Gillan, Tribunal Member, International Protection Appeals Tribunal*
*The writer is writing inwards a personal capacity

Introduction

The recent ruling of the Court of Justice (CJEU) of nine Feb 2017  in  the  case  of M v Minister for Justice in addition to Equality, Republic of Ireland in addition to Anor inwards is the 4th fourth dimension that Court has given judgment on Ireland’s  unique  and  evolving  procedure  for  determining  claims  for Subsidiary  Protection.  Subsidiary  Protection  is  a European Union police trace status provided  for  by  the Qualification Directive (originally Directive 2004/83, at in i lawsuit Directive 2011/95 – although Ireland, similar the UK, only opted inwards to the old version) that is designed  to  complement  the  protection  for refugees provided  by  the  1951 Refugee Convention.

Subsidiary Protection protects those who exercise non tally the strict Definition of a refugee, but who are nonetheless at adventure of serious terms inwards their domicile country. Republic of Ireland has upwardly to at in i lawsuit dealt alongside these 2 types of (similar, but non identical) claims via solely dissever decision-making processes.

The litigant (‘M’), a Rwandan national, brought attempt out illustration litigation on the Irish procedure on vi Jan 2011. At the time, all subsidiary protection applications were determined by the Minister for Justice in an administrative procedure that carried no right of appeal. The ensuing protracted  litigation  included  two  references  to  the  CJEU  from 2 different  Irish  Courts;  the  most  recent, a reference from the Supreme Court, is considered inwards the ECJ’s recent judgment.

The Irish system has undergone meaning changes over the years during which M’s illustration has been inwards train, rendering the Court’s findings somewhat moot; however the case speaks to a key regulation of European Union law: the right to live heard inwards matters that significantly behaviour upon one’s interests.

The facts of the case

M, a law graduate, made an asylum application inwards Republic of Ireland inwards May 2008. He was interviewed and his claim was rejected at maiden off illustration inwards August 2008.  M’s subsequent appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was refused, inwards Oct 2008. The appeal was on the papers: the maiden off illustration decision-maker had invoked a provision inwards Irish Gaelic police trace that denied him an oral appeal (on account of his having delayed before making his asylum claim). M subsequently lodged a claim for subsidiary protection.

At that time, the Irish system was structured in such a agency that individuals could non simultaneously claim both asylum in addition to subsidiary protection.  Only  once  an  asylum  claim was finally determined, could a person  claim  subsidiary  protection  (or  indeed permission to remain on other  grounds).  All claims for subsidiary protection were decided past times the Minister for Justice (as distinct from asylum claims, which were decided past times an independent body). No personal interviews were carried out for these types of claim, and at that spot was no right of appeal. In M’s illustration his claim for subsidiary protection was rejected inwards writing on thirty September 2010. The delay – of almost two years – was non uncommon. The Minister’s decision relied to a large extent on the 2 before decisions that had rejected M’s claim for asylum, in addition to inwards item the negative credibility findings therein.

M challenged the Irish procedure in the High Court, who referred the next enquiry to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

‘In  a  case  where  an applicant seeks subsidiary protection condition following  a refusal to grant refugee condition in addition to it is proposed that such  an  application  should  be  refused,  does the requirement to cooperate  with  an applicant imposed on a Member State inwards Article 4(1)  of … Directive 2004/83 … postulate the administrative regime of  the  Member  State inwards enquiry to provide such applicant alongside the results  of  such an assessment before a determination is finally made in addition to thus as  to  enable  him  or her to address those aspects of the proposed determination which suggest a negative result?’

The CJEU, inwards its judgment of 22 Nov 2012, M. (C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744),  answered  this  enquiry inwards the negative. However, somewhat unusually, the CJEU went on to consider a farther question: whether M’s ‘right to live heard’ had been respected. The CJEU establish that it had not: one thousand should conduct maintain been afforded an chance to brand his views known before a determination was reached on his claim for subsidiary protection. The fact that one thousand had had an interview for his before asylum claim was insufficient.

The case returned to the Irish Gaelic High Court, who held on 23 June 2013 that the Minister for Justice had wrongly failed to afford one thousand an effective hearing when his application for subsidiary protection was beingness examined. The Minister brought an appeal against that determination before the Supreme Court and M also brought a cross-appeal – neither political party considered the High Court had correctly interpreted the CJEU judgment.

While that appeal was pending, on fourteen Nov 2013, the Irish Gaelic regime changed the physical care for to give outcome to the High Court judgment. Personal interviews for applicants for subsidiary protection were introduced, equally were full appeal rights to the Tribunal. However instead of fusing the decision-making process for the two claims (as is done inwards all other European Union States) the new procedure dealt with the applications separately: i claim after the other. Applicants for international protection, if unsuccessful, were pose through a near-identical process, twice: a personal interview, a first illustration decision, an appeal to the Tribunal, about other personal interview, about other maiden off illustration determination in addition to a farther appeal. This process, naturally, gave ascension to delays.

Meanwhile M’s attempt out illustration litigation continued. The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in addition to on 24 Nov 2014 referred about other enquiry to the CJEU:

‘Does  the  “right to live heard” inwards European Union police trace postulate that an applicant   for  subsidiary  protection,  made  pursuant  to  Council Directive   2004/83/EC,   be   accorded   an  oral  hearing  of  that application,  including the right to telephone telephone or cross-examine witnesses, when  the application is made inwards circumstances where the Member State concerned  operates 2 dissever procedures, i after the other, for examining  applications  for  refugee  status  and  applications  for subsidiary protection, respectively?’

On 9 February 2017, the CJEU gave judgment. The Court held that, equally Ireland was not operating a single procedure to determine asylum in addition to subsidiary protection (the model employed past times other European Union States), the Procedures Directive (Directive 2005/85; Republic of Ireland opted out of the later Directive 2013/32, which replaced it) did not apply to claims for subsidiary protection in Ireland.  This reiterated a indicate the CJEU had settled previously, in addition to most late restated lastly yr (in about other Irish case):  Danqua  v  Minister  for Justice in addition to Equality Ireland [2016] EUECJ C-429/15.  The CJEU emphasised that the right to live heard was an of import general principle of EU law. When making a determination that significantly affects  a  person’s interests (as here), the State must ensure that their  right  to  input  into  that  decision  is facilitated, in addition to thus equally to give sum outcome to the right to live heard.

The CJEU went on to discuss the scope of that right, finding that a personal  interview  would  non necessarily live required for all subsidiary protection claims, given that a noun asylum interview would already  have  been  carried  out.  The Irish Gaelic regime had essentially played it prophylactic after the CJEU’s maiden off judgment inwards this case, past times bringing inwards personal interviews across the board, for all subsidiary protection cases. The CJEU clarified that what it had meant was that at that spot must live about agency for an applicant’s views to be heard. This could live inwards writing or past times personal interview – depending on the private case. Some cases may postulate a fresh interview, and some may not.

The CJEU made clear that the Irish authorities are gratis to rely on the information gathered inwards the course of pedagogy of assessment of an asylum claim (including statements made inwards an interview or at a hearing) when it comes to assess the claim for subsidiary protection. The  critical thing is that the province must send out  an  individualised  assessment  of  the  relevant  facts;  whether an interview is necessary in addition to thus to exercise – inwards the item province of affairs of Ireland’s bifurcated  system  for  assessing  international protection  claims – is  fact-specific.

Further developments

The outcome of the CJEU determination has been overtaken past times recent events. On 31  December  2016 a novel physical care for for international protection claims was brought  into  force  via  the  commencement  of  relevant sections of the International  Protection  Act  2015.  The Act provides for a new, fused ‘single procedure’ whereby asylum in addition to subsidiary protection claims volition live assessed at the same fourth dimension in addition to determined inwards i decision. That decision, if negative, tin live appealed to the Tribunal on both asylum and subsidiary protection grounds (in the same hearing, for the first time). The introduction of a unmarried physical care for brings Republic of Ireland into line of piece of employment alongside the balance of the European Union. The new system, in i lawsuit fully upwardly in addition to running, is probable to final result inwards a reduction of delays inwards what had developed over the years into an overly prolonged system for assessing international protection claims.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:5

Photo credit: smelltheroses blog

Share this post