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.
M.A. (BANGLADESH), S.A. AND A.Z. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND M.A.)
THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND
1.������ In M.A. (Bangladesh) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal (No. 1) [2017] IEHC 677 , [2017] 11 JIC 0801 (Unreported High Court 8th November, 2017), I referred certain questions concerning the Dublin III regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013) to the CJEU under art. 267 TFEU.
2.������ On foot of that reference, in Case C-661/17 M.A. v. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Court of Justice of the European Union, 23rd January, 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:53 ), the CJEU answered the reference in a sense that was, in essence, favourable to the interpretation advanced by the respondents.
3.������ In separate proceedings, U. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2017] IEHC 490 (Unreported, High Court, 26th June, 2017); U. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2017] IEHC 613 (Unreported, High Court, 24th October, 2017), O�Regan J. had found for the State on the question at issue, namely who was to exercise the fall-back discretion under art. 17 of the Dublin III regulation.
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.