Decision to remove Romanian national and exclude him from the State was reasonable and proportionate

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing – European Law – free movement of persons - Romanian citizen challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice upholding the decision to order his removal and exclusion from the State - EU citizen with permanent resident status – argued that he should not be removed and excluded from the jurisdiction for a three year period based on a single offence and conviction - substantial portion of the sentence imposed was suspended – argued that the Minister acted disproportionately in basing the order of removal and exclusion on a sole conviction as this would be insufficient to constitute a threat to public policy or security – argued that insufficient weight was attributed to mitigating circumstances – argued that the Minister was imposing an extra judicial sanction - convicted of an assault - sentenced to three years and six months in prison with the final two years suspended – whilst in prison the Minister wrote proposing to make a removal order – removal order made – excluded from the State for three years - he made an application for a review of the decision – decision upheld – argued that the Minister was arbitrary in her reasoning and failed to justify the exclusionary period of three years - Member States are in principle free to determine the requirements of public policy however this must be interpreted strictly and restrictions cannot be imposed unless an individual’s presence or conduct constitutes a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy - ecidivism can constitute a sufficiently serious threat to public policy - low risk of reoffending - national authorities must assess on a case by case basis whether the circumstances which gave rise to the expulsion order proved the existence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy and this threat must be present as a general rule at the time of expulsion - principle of effectiveness -  decision was not arrived at based upon the conviction only - decision maker did in fact take into account all of the circumstances of mitigation identified – Court satisfied that a proportionate decision was arrived at bearing in mind the nature of the offence and the impact on the victim - Court not satisfied that the decision is either irrational or unreasonable – judicial review refused.