The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal in a judicial review challenge brought by failed asylum seekers, holding that the 14-day limit for bringing the case did not breach the EU-law principle of equivalence. It set aside the High Court order and dismissed the application for judicial review.
The respondents, identified in the judgment only by initials, had challenged decisions refusing them recognition as refugees. They argued that provisions and principles of EU law could invalidate those decisions. The State argued that their application was out of time under section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, and that there was no good or sufficient reason to extend the period.
In the High Court, Hogan J raised whether the 14-day limit was compatible with EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness. He held that it breached both. The Supreme Court appeal addressed that legal question; the judgment did not decide whether the refusals of refugee status were substantively correct.
In his judgment, delivered on 10 April 2014, Mr Justice Fennelly agreed that the limit did not infringe the principle of effectiveness. He disagreed with the High Court and with the view of Murray J on equivalence. Fennelly J reasoned that section 5 applied to challenges concerning immigration and border entry decisions whether they rested on EU law or national law. In his view, the provision therefore did not treat EU-law claims less favourably than similar national-law claims.
Fennelly J also concluded that the case did not require a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, because the relevant EU-law principles were settled and the issue was their application to Irish legislation.
The judgment records that the High Court had found the application was outside the statutory 14-day period and that there was no ground to extend it. The Supreme Court’s operative order was to allow the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court order and dismiss the judicial review application. The judgment is Fennelly J’s; it also notes that Murray J delivered a separate judgment.