Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
1.������ In the substantive proceedings herein, the Applicant seeks an order of certiorari quashing the transfer decision of the First Respondent, made on 10 June 2020, which determined that the United Kingdom is the responsible Member State under EU Regulation 604/2013 (hereinafter referred to as �the Dublin III Regulation�) to examine the Applicant�s claim for international protection.����
2.������ The Dublin III Regulation established the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person.� This Regulation was transposed into national law by the European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2014, SI 525 of 2014 and subsequently by the European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2018, SI 62 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as �the 2018 Regulations�).
3.������ Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation recognises that a Member State may, in its discretion, assume responsibility for an international protection application made in its territory notwithstanding that the application of the criteria contained in the Dublin III Regulation establishes that another Member State is responsible for that international protection application.
4.������ An application for leave to bring Judicial Review proceedings came before this Court on 5 October 2020.� The Court adjourned the application so that the Respondents could be put on notice of the application, in light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in NVU v. The Refugee Appeals Tribuna l [2020] IESC 46 , which held that the Second Respondent retained the discretionary power, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, not to enforce a transfer order in respect of an applicant for international protection.������
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.