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.
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Record Number: 2021/729JR
Donnelly J.���������������������������� ��������� Neutral Citation Number [2023] IECA 290
              This judgment concerns Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (hereinafter "the Dublin III Regulation" or �the Regulation�). The Regulation establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection.� It concerns a �take back� request pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Regulation and the question of when the conditions in Article 18(1)(d) are satisfied.
              It may be helpful to set out certain provisions of the Regulation in detail at this early stage of the judgment before turning to the evidence in the case and the jurisprudence of the CJEU in respect of the Regulation. The framework as established by the Regulation and the caselaw is a complex tapestry of interlocking principles and it is useful to examine this before setting out the impugned decision and the other evidence in the case.
              The general background to the Dublin III Regulation was usefully set out by this Court in P.F. v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IECA 357 . The Court (Whelan, Faherty, Murray JJ) usefully described the background to the Regulation in the following terms:-
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.