or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court, in three judicial review cases where two Afghani nationals and a Georgian national had been granted subsidiary protection in Italy before applying for international protection in this State, refers three questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of European law in circumstances where someone who was granted international protection in a Member State subsequently applies for international protection in another Member State.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review – European law - three cases – two Afghani nationals and a Georgian nationals were all granted subsidiary protection in Italy before travelling to this State – procedural history – statutory provisions – definition of “the member state concerned” - best interpreted as meaning either member state - where a third country national has been granted international protection in the form of subsidiary protection in a first member state and moves to the territory of a second member state does the making of a further application for international protection in the second member state constitute an abuse of rights such that the second member state is permitted to adopt a measure providing that such a subsequent application is inadmissible - making of a second or indeed subsequent application where a person has already been granted subsidiary protection does amount to an abuse of rights and therefore in accordance with the general principles of Union law a member state is entitled to adopt measures to deem such applications inadmissible – whether art. 25 of directive 2005/85 is to be interpreted so as to preclude a member state which is not bound by directive 2011/95 but is bound by regulation 604/2013 from adopting a measure such as that at issue in the present case, which deems inadmissible an application for asylum by a country national who has previously been granted subsidiary protection by another member state - whether the literal meaning of the procedures directive should be departed from and the directive interpreted in a manner consistent with the overall intention – three questions referred to the CJEU.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.