The High Court found that the Minister for Justice failed to issue a decision within a reasonable time on a review of a Cameroonian man’s application for an EU residence card. It dismissed the other parts of his judicial review claim.
The man had applied for a residence card as the spouse of a Polish national working in Ireland. The Minister initially refused the application in September 2006, relying on an Irish rule later held inconsistent with EU law in the Metock case. The man did not seek to quash that decision. After Metock, the Department agreed to reconsider the matter, and the man’s solicitors supplied further documents and explanations.
The Department refused a fresh application in November 2008, citing a lack of evidence that his wife was exercising EU treaty rights and noting that they no longer lived together. It then agreed to review that refusal. The review raised questions about the genuineness of the marriage; the man’s solicitors provided extensive observations in January 2009. The judgment records these as concerns raised by the Department and submissions made on the man’s behalf, not findings that the marriage was a sham.
The court held that the Minister could verify whether the circumstances supporting a residence-card application were genuine and could seek further information. It also held that the six-month deadline for deciding an initial application was mandatory. The original 2006 application was decided late, but the court declined relief over that delay: the man had not sought to overturn the decision, and the court found no established prejudice from it. The later fresh application was decided within the applicable six-month period.
The review of the November 2008 refusal had not been decided when the judicial review hearing began. The court found that the review had not been completed within a reasonable time. It considered that, after receiving the man’s extensive observations on 7 January 2009, the Department could reasonably have had until 7 April to decide the review, and should then have acted promptly, no later than three months after that date. The man sought judicial-review leave on 15 June.
By the time the court gave judgment, the Minister had issued a decision upholding the November 2008 refusal. The court therefore said that no order compelling a decision or granting interim relief remained available. It granted a declaration that the review decision had not been made within a reasonable time and dismissed all other claims. It did not decide any claim for damages; the judgment says any such claim could be brought separately. The court left costs for further submissions.