The Supreme Court has overturned the designation of the Central Applications Office as a public body for the purposes of the Official Languages Act 2003.
The CAO, based in Galway, has operated since 1976 as the central system for processing applications to third-level institutions. It challenged regulations made in 2006 which brought it within the Act’s requirements for public bodies, including obligations concerning the use of Irish and English.
The High Court had upheld the designation on one statutory ground. It found that, although the CAO was not performing functions previously vested in publicly controlled bodies, its functions were nevertheless permitted under legislation governing universities and regional technical colleges.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
Mr Justice Fennelly emphasised that the CAO does not itself admit students to college. Higher education institutions decide how many places to offer and who is entitled to those places. The CAO performs the centralised administrative task of receiving and processing applications and communicating offers authorised by the institutions.
The court held that this application-processing function was not one that had previously been vested by law in universities before the CAO was created. Before 1976, individual institutions processed their own applications as part of their ordinary activities, but there was no equivalent national sorting system.
The Minister also failed on the alternative argument that the CAO’s function was performed under an authority granted by legislation. The Universities Act 1997 could not have authorised the CAO’s establishment in 1976, while provisions governing regional technical colleges concerned admission of students rather than delegation of application processing.
The Supreme Court held that the relevant 2006 regulations went beyond the Minister’s powers insofar as they designated the CAO as a public body.
The appeal was allowed and a declaration was to issue to that effect. The Minister’s attempt to uphold the designation on the alternative statutory ground was dismissed.