Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court allows appeal from High Court, and sets aside an order quashing a decision of the Minister for Justice to refuse to allow an applicant to be treated as a 'permitted family member' of another EU national, on the grounds that: (a) the relevant EU legislation had not been incorrectly transposed into Irish law; and (b) the applicant had failed to establish that the Minister had fettered her discretion in requiring that, to be a 'permitted family member', a relationship of over two years was required, as it was clear that the Minister judged the relationship by reference to other criteria.
Baker J (nem diss): Application to be treated as a 'permitted family member' by reason of being in a durable relationship with a European Union (EU) citizen - Directive 2004/38/EC On the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States, O.J. L/158, 30.4.2004 - European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015(S.I. 548/2015) - judicial review - refusal by Minister to treat applicant as a permitted family member - appeal by Minister of order of certiorari - alleged failure of applicant to demonstrate that he and a Spanish citizen were in a durable relationship - whether 2004 directive correctly transposed by 2015 regulations - whether Minister had fettered his discretion - scheme of Citizens' Directive - whether Spanish citizen should have been joined to proceedings - whether redress procedure should be available to third country nationals - whether directive correctly transposed - language used in transposing instrument - whether language lacked clarity - whether co-habitation was necessary - whether necessary that relationship have a sexual element - indicia of commitment - whether Minister had wrongly imposed a requirement of cohabitation for two years.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.