Judgment: 2017-07-19 · Court archive

Court of Appeal to seek EU ruling on benefits after two weeks’ work

The appeal over a Romanian citizen’s jobseeker’s allowance claim was adjourned while the court seeks guidance on whether short employment can preserve worker status for six months.

Court of Appeal · [2017] IECA 208

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Neculai Tarola (Applicant)
  • Minister for Social Protection (Respondent)
  • Gerard Hogan (Judge)
What

The appeal over a Romanian citizen’s jobseeker’s allowance claim was adjourned while the court seeks guidance on whether short employment can preserve worker status for six months.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
  • Marren Brothers Ltd
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court had rejected his application for judicial review. White J held that the relevant domestic provision concerned people who completed a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year, and that Mr Tarola’s two-week work period did not qualify. His counsel did not pursue the argument in the Court of Appeal that Mr Tarola had worked under a fixed-term contract.

The Court of Appeal has adjourned an appeal by Romanian citizen Neculai Tarola while it seeks a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether two weeks of paid work can preserve a worker’s status for at least six months after involuntary unemployment.

The question arose from Mr Tarola’s challenge to the refusal of jobseeker’s allowance. He worked for Marren Brothers Ltd from 8 to 22 July 2014 and earned just over €1,309. He had registered as a jobseeker. The Minister for Social Protection refused his application, concluding that his work history and other evidence did not establish that Ireland was his habitual residence.

Mr Tarola argued that Article 7(3)(c) of the EU Citizenship Directive gave him the right to retain worker status for six months after his employment ended. That status, he said, would support his claim to jobseeker’s allowance. The Minister opposed the appeal.

The High Court had rejected his application for judicial review. White J held that the relevant domestic provision concerned people who completed a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year, and that Mr Tarola’s two-week work period did not qualify. His counsel did not pursue the argument in the Court of Appeal that Mr Tarola had worked under a fixed-term contract.

Giving judgment, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said EU law recognises that short or part-time work can qualify as employment if it is effective and genuine. He considered that the directive’s reference to becoming involuntarily unemployed “during the first twelve months” might form a distinct route from the provision for people who complete a fixed-term contract of less than a year.

But the wording also raised unresolved questions, including what period “the first twelve months” refers to and whether even very short work should trigger a further six months of worker status and potential access to social security. The judgment did not decide whether Mr Tarola was entitled to the allowance.

The court proposed referring a question to the EU court on whether a citizen of another EU member state who works for two weeks for genuine remuneration and then becomes involuntarily unemployed retains worker status for at least six months for the purposes of the directive. It invited the parties to address the wording of the proposed question and any further issues arising from the reference. The appeal stands adjourned pending the EU court’s ruling.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review