Facts: The second named applicant was a Latvian national and, therefore, a Union citizen. He had been living in Ireland since December, 2003. He married a Latvian in 2005 and had lived with his wife since his removal on foot of a removal order made pursuant to the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, in June, … Read More
Kovalenko v Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant: | Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General |
Court/s: | High Court |
Citation/s: | [2014] IEHC 624 |
Nature of Proceedings: | Judicial Review |
Judgment Date/s: | 12 Dec 2014 |
Judge: | McDermott J. |
Category: | EU Treaty Rights |
Keywords: | Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Minor, Removal Order |
Country of Origin: | Latvia |
URL: | https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9314a321-e09e-43af-81aa-481cb6afb378/2014_IEHC_624_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH |
Geographic Focus: | Ireland |
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. When assessing whether or not to make such an order, the Minister for Justice is entitled to take into account the nature and seriousness of the criminal conduct and the attitude and subsequent behaviour of the offender. That may be considered alone or, in appropriate circumstances, cumulatively with other factors under the heading of “public policy” when deciding to remove or exclude such a person. It is not necessarily relevant that the person has not committed any other offences in the meantime; a wider appraisal of the risk to public policy created by allowing him or her to remain in the State must be made by the Minister. If, when making a removal order or affirming its making, the Minister comes into possession of material information pertaining to the risk posed by the applicant to public policy, it should be put to the applicant for comment in accordance with fair procedures. |