PR, JR and KR (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 201
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2015
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Poland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/363467f3-78cc-4e9e-a000-eaa5f2b662c8/2015_IEHC_201_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Polish national and an EU citizen. He had been living in Ireland since October, 2006. He married a Polish national in 2011. They had one child, who was born in Ireland in 2012. In October, 2011, he acquired permanent residence under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 and justify a lengthy exclusion period.

The procedure provided under the Regulations of 2006 for review of the making of removal orders is compliant with EU law and Directive 2004/38/EC.

A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will risk an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Others (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General and An Post
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 582
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:22 Dec 2014
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Residence
Country of Origin:Nigeria / Ireland (naturalised Irish citizen)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/290f664d-7b03-492c-8bc9-421de9ab14a5/2014_IEHC_582_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The plaintiff was a naturalised Irish citizen of Nigerian origin. In October, 2007, he was dismissed from his employment as a postal sorter with An Post on the sole ground that he could not establish at the time to the satisfaction of his employer that he had the right to work in Ireland. In High Court proceedings for damages … Read More

Principles:

In order to bring a damages claim against a Member State like Ireland for breach of EU law under the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 1991 decision in Francovich, the breach must be sufficiently serious. In deciding whether or not this is so, the court must determine whether or not the Member State concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion. In examining that question, the criteria which national courts may take into account include the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed. In general, any loss incurred as a result of a breach must be mitigated. Where loss has occurred due to breach of property rights, Francovich provides an adequate remedy and it is not necessary to compensate the injured party by reference to the property rights provisions of the Constitution of 1937. Nonetheless, recourse to other remedies, such as constitutional protection of the right to one’s good name, may be relevant and obtainable in a given case.

Go Back

GKN v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 478
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:22 Oct 2014
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Citizenship, First instance, Naturalisation
Country of Origin:Kenya
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c86e29fd-ab20-4554-b181-3750f8e935c8/2014_IEHC_478_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant held a declaration of refugee status and applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation. It was disclosed in the course of the application that he had been arrested and convicted of hit and run and leaving the scene of the accident, in respect of which he was fined €300 in respect of both … Read More

Principles:

If, when assessing applications for certificates of naturalisation, officials in the Department of Justice are aware of information tending to suggest that an applicant is not of good character, such as having had a conviction recorded against him, then in order to conduct a proper assessment of his application, they should have regard to the outline facts of the offence, any mitigating factors, the maximum punishment and the punishment imposed, as the latter would likely indicate the gravity of the offending behaviour in the eyes of the sentencing court.

If an applicant makes representations to the Minister in connection with an offence or circumstances in which he came to the adverse attention of the Gardaí as might tend to excuse his behaviour, the officials should weigh that in the balance in accordance with fair procedures, and bring it to the attention of the Minister.

Go Back

AL v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 503
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:01 Oct 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Deportation, First instance, Refugee
Country of Origin:China
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/441404cb-dac1-4b63-b327-ce9ac06a5f63/2014_IEHC_503_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Chinese citizen who had entered the State on the basis of a student visa in 2004. Her permission to be in the State expired in 2005 and she remained illegally in the State thereafter. Pursuant to s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, a proposal to deport her was made in 2008 on the ground … Read More

Principles:

The procedure provided for in s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 safeguards the right of a proposed deportee to make representations to the Minister before any deportation order is made, and constitutes sufficient protection of the right to make representations under Article 41 of the Constitution and article 8 ECHR. The lack of an entitlement on the part of the proposed deportee to leave the State before a deportation order is made if the representations do not succeed in persuading the Minister for Justice to grant the proposed deportee leave to remain, does not amount to a breach of the proposed deportee’s rights under the Constitution or article 8 ECHR.

A person who was or might be “affected” or “adversely affected” by a discretionary decision of a public body has a constitutional right to fair procedures, which encompasses the right to be heard.

Go Back