The High Court has refused an application by a woman who sought to claim unpaid child benefit arrears for her childhood, holding that she was not entitled to apply for the payments in her own name under Irish or EU law.
The applicant challenged a Department of Social Protection decision dated 1 February 2022, which rejected her claim because she was not a qualified person to apply. She sought to have that decision quashed and argued that EU law gave her, as the child of migrant workers, a right to apply directly. She also asked the court to disapply the relevant Irish legislation or refer the legal issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The judgment says the applicant came to Ireland from Romania as a child and lived with her parents and brother in Carlow. Her parents’ earlier applications for child benefit were refused. Those decisions were not before the court. Her mother left the family home in 2012 and moved to Germany; the applicant said she had no contact with her afterwards. Her father continued to support her.
After the applicant turned 18 in March 2012, her parents’ entitlement to child benefit for her ended, although they retained the right to seek arrears for her childhood. The court noted that the applicant did not claim her parents had failed to support her. She had said she worked part-time to contribute to family expenses and intended to use any arrears to assist with a university course.
The judge first extended the deadline for bringing the judicial review. The application was made about 25 days outside the three-month limit. The judge accepted the solicitor’s explanation, describing the delay as short and finding no tangible prejudice to the Minister.
On the substance, the court considered EU case law concerning family benefits and migrant workers. It concluded that the decision in Humer did not give the applicant a direct right to claim Irish child benefit. In that case, Austrian law allowed the child to apply for the benefit at issue. Irish law, by contrast, limits entitlement to the person with whom the qualified child normally resides. The judge held that EU law did not create an entitlement beyond or different from the one provided by national law.
The court refused to disapply section 220(1) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and found no need to refer questions to the CJEU. It also held that the refusal was based on the applicant not being a qualified person, rather than her parents’ exercise of free movement rights.
The respondents succeeded. The judge’s indicative view was that they were entitled to costs, subject to agreement or adjudication. The court listed the matter for 11 July 2024 to consider final orders, including costs.