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.
EU law rights are not engaged in statutory application for family reunification
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses an application for an order of certiorari, in circumstances where a Nigerian national applicant sought to challenge a decision rejecting his application for family reunification with his non-martial Nigerian partner, on the grounds that: (1) EU law rights are not engaged in the application pursuant to statute, and therefore the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms is not applicable; (2) it was open to the applicant to invoke the EEA Family Reunification Policy, which contains a Ministerial discretion to disapply the financial requirements which the applicant could not satisfy; (3) No constitutional rights have been breached by the State in providing a separate and potentially more restrictive non-statutory scheme for reunification of non-marital relationships; (4) As the applicant is a married person, this precludes him from asserting potential constitutional rights with a non-martial partner as the issue is jus tertii; (5) the applicant’s non-marital relationship is not similar to his marriage as it allowed him to marry a third party, where that choice would not have been available to him in the martial relationship and would not have been recognised in Irish law; and (6) Convention rights have not been breached by denying the applicant the benefit of a statutory provision for the purposes of family reunification.
Asylum and Immigration – judicial review – certiorari - international protection - applicant seeks to challenge the decision of the respondent refusing his application for family reunification with his non-marital partner pursuant to s. 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 – married EU citizen but subsequently separated – s. 56(9) of the International Protection Act 2015 - claims that s.56(9) is repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution and incompatible with EU law and the State’s obligations under the ECHR – family reunification – applicant married an EU citizen but later separated – marriage of convenience - s. 56(9) only permits unification with a marital partner - - application refused.
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.
