The application filed in the High Court aiming to block the Dáil from proceeding with a vote on the enactment of the EU Migration and Asylum Pact has been rejected. The verdict was delivered on Tuesday by Mr Justice David Nolan who refused to entertain Michelle Keane’s plea against the Irish Government and Attorney General. This marks the second such attempt in a recent time to stave off Dáil’s decision on this pact, the first one initiated by barrister Una McGurk, which was also turned down by the court for not being correctly issued.
The pact encompasses steps for more thorough screening and safety checks, swift processing of asylum requests, along with concentrated efforts towards the quick repatriation of those whose applications fail. Additionally, it provides a mechanism, letting countries either donate financially or agree to shift asylum seekers to other EU nations.
Mr Nolan mentioned the petition had no chance of success, ruling that the court was not in a position to issue such an order as it would represent a breach of the court, the Oireachtas, and the Government’s division of powers.
The Dáil is scheduled to vote on the matter on Tuesday evening, with the Seanad already having given its nod to the pact, as per the court’s information.
Ms Keane, hailing from Knocknagoshel, Tralee, Co Kerry, and representing herself, argued that the pact’s passage violated the Irish constitution and breached Irish sovereignty. She demanded a referendum to assess public opinion on the matter.
However, the defendants, represented by David Fennelly BL, requested the court to dismiss the appeal citing grounds of procedural flaws and a blatant violation of power separation.
Fennelly also defended the pact’s implementation as it was consistent with the Constitution’s article 28.4.7, ratified by the public during the 2009 Lisbon Treaty vote.
The judge found Ms Keane’s arguments to be based on mere rumour and lacking solid evidence. He firmly upheld the case law pertaining to the separation of powers. He further noted that the pact’s adoption did not violate the constitution, contrary to the claims made. Legal costs from the State parties were awarded against Ms Keane, who indicated her intent to lodge an appeal.