Minister failed to determine period of residence in decision to exclude Latvian national from the state

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive decision - European law – free movement of people - Latvian national challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to make a removal order against him – employment history in State - has one dependent son – estranged for 2 years – claimed to have little emotional connection with Latvia -  struggled with addiction -  came to the adverse attention of Gardai on a significant number of occasions -  convicted of a number of offences in the criminal courts, including drug possession, theft and road traffic offences – Minister issued notice of intention to make removal order - submissions against the issuance of a removal order – delay in making decision – Minister made decision to make removal order – five year exclusion period ordered as well - expulsion is conditional on the requirement that the personal conduct of the person concerned represents a genuine, present threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the host member state - y relying exclusively upon previous criminal convictions in making a removal order against the applicant, the first-named respondent has acted ultra vires and/or in breach of European law – argued that the Minister acted ultra vires by making the decision to issue a removal order against the applicant before concluding that his personal conduct represented a genuine, present threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or of the host Member State - failed to identify the fundamental interest of society which necessitated the making of a removal order - State has failed in its obligation to properly transpose European law - failed to assess his previous convictions within the context of the potential penalties and the actual sentences imposed - ought to have fully considered his degree of involvement in the criminal activity and/or whether the manner in which the criminal acts were committed indicated that he was a serious threat to society - breach of natural justice and fair procedures and/or was irrational – irrational to conclude he represented a present threat when the Minister delayed 9 months to make the decision – argued that the internal review procedure is not an effective remedy in accordance with EU law – Minister argued that the proceedings are premature because the applicant has not availed of the review procedure - impugned decision and the accompanying documentation is very detailed and engages in an elaborate analysis in relation to his background and his behaviour within the State -  fundamentally flawed because the decision maker failed to address the question of the basis of his right, if any, to reside in the State - decision maker must first and foremost establish the basis on which the applicant resided in Ireland - the crucial question, which the decision maker failed to determine before commencing an overall deliberation in this matter was whether or not he had resided in this jurisdiction for the required five year period of residency that would entitle him to a right of permanent residence immune to all interference, except on serious grounds of public policy – Court not satisfied that any argument arises in relation to the correct transposition of the Directive – judicial review granted