Facts of the case:
The Nigerian applicant claimed asylum in Ireland shortly after he arrived. His claim was based on two grounds: firstly alleged fear of persecution by his then girlfriend's mother and secobdly upon religious grounds. In fact, the applicant is Christian and affirmed to have been attacked and threatened by an Islamic religious organization and to have suffered injury, including a broken leg as a result of assault by the group. The claim was rejected as the Tribunal did not accept that the behaviour of the girlfriend's mother did not consitute a ground for the recognition of the refugee status. The claim in relation to religious persecution was not accepted nor rejected. The Tribunal maintained that the applicant could have enduringly relocated to avoid such persecution or availed himself of state protection in Nigeria. The consequent application for subsidiary protection was refused. He then applied for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds but also that application was rejected. The applicat therefore sought leave to seek judicial review of the decisions of the Minister for Justice to refuse his application for subsidiary protection and to make a deportation order against him. The Tribual grounded its decision on the fact that state protection was available in Nigeria and that the applicant could have availed himself of it.
Outcome of the case:
The High Court granted leave to seek judicial review on the ground that the decision to refuse subsidiary protection was not proportionate or reasonable given the fact that the applicant had already sought protection and the responses he received in that regard.
5. The first substantive further ground in which leave for judicial review was sought, was the alleged failure of the respondent to provide an effective remedy in accordance with the Constitution and/or Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
38. In this case the applicant also relied upon Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and it was submitted by Robert Barron S.C. on behalf of the respondent and I agree that this Charter docs not expand upon the rights which a litigant enjoys under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.