The applicant, a man from Kosovo*, arrived in Ireland with his adult son and applied for international protection. The applicant stated that he was threatened by representatives of a large company in Kosovo to drop a civil lawsuit he was pursuing against the firm as his son had died after being electrocuted.

The applicants' request was rejected by the International Protection Office on the grounds of insufficient credibility. The applicant appealed the decision to the High Court and requested an oral hearing. The lawyer of the applicant further indicated that the applicant wished to submit additional material. The tribunal determined that the credibility issues could be resolved without an oral hearing, thus it denied the request for an oral hearing and rejected the applicants' request for international protection.

The applicant filed an appeal before the High Court. The applicant challenged the judgement only on the basis that the tribunal determined the appeal in the absence of the additional written submission that the applicant had indicated he planned to make; the applicant does not attempt to impugn the decision not to hold an oral hearing. 

The High Court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the applicants’ lawyer had no justification to wait for a notice of an oral hearing. In the legal context, the Administrative Practice Note (APN) clarifies that the applicants’ lawyer is free to submit additional material they would like to include. This material is referred to in the APN as "detailed and consolidated grounds of appeal" and is submitted in writing, indicating that there was no obstacle to submitting it. The applicant was required to provide more documentation in this regard, regardless of whether or not the applicant was going to obtain an oral hearing, but the applicant failed to do so. The applicant further failed to provide an explanation for the lack of submission of the additional materials it desired to make, and the court observed that 77 days elapsed between the filing of the notice of appeal and the substantive judgement. The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial grounds to appeal and thus rejected the appeal.

Kosovo (*) - This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.