H.I.D., B.A. v Refugee Applications Commissioner & others

The European court of Justice recently did not uphold a case for asylum brought on the basis of the following arguments: 

The Ministerial Directive of 2003 which sought to give priority to asylum applications from Nigerian nationals, (later revoked in 2010). They contended  this was  incompatible with Article 23(3) and (4) of Directive 2005/85, which contains an exhaustive list of circumstances in which an accelerated procedure may be used and does not include either prioritising or accelerating the examination of applications made by one group of nationals by reference to their nationality. In addition it was submitted this infringes also the prohibition of discrimination on basis of nationality.

The possibility of lodging an appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal against the ORAC report may not comply with the obligation set out in Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 to guarantee ‘the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal’. It was submitted that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is not ‘a court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU.

Basic facts of the case:

In each of the two cases in the main proceedings, an asylum application was filed in Ireland by a Nigerian national who had entered Irish territory in 2008. In the case of Ms D., the ORAC dismissed the asylum application in its report dated 15 August 2008 pursuant to section 13 of the Refugee Act. In the case of Mr A., the ORAC, in its report dated 25 August 2008, issued a negative recommendation in respect of the application of that Nigerian national, which was confirmed on appeal by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal by a decision of 25 November 2008. 

The findings of the case consisted of the following:

It follows from the foregoing that Article 23(3) and (4) of Council Directive 2005/85 of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from examining by way of prioritised or accelerated procedure, in compliance with the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of that directive, certain categories of asylum applications defined on the basis of the criterion of the nationality or country of origin of the applicant.

It follows that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has a broad discretion, since it takes cognisance of both questions of fact and questions of law and rules on the evidence submitted to it, in relation to which it enjoys discretion. It must be concluded that the criterion of independence is satisfied by the Irish system for granting and withdrawing refugee status and that that system must therefore be regarded as respecting the right to an effective remedy. Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows an applicant for asylum either to lodge an appeal against the decision of the determining authority before a court or tribunal such as the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Ireland), and to bring an appeal against the decision of that tribunal before a higher court such as the High Court (Ireland), or to contest the validity of that determining authority’s decision before the High Court, the judgments of which may be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court (Ireland).

To access the full judgment: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2013/C17511.html

Brophy Solicitors

06.02.13