The High Court dismissed a Romanian national’s application to overturn a decision refusing his claim for a State pension (non-contributory), finding that the decision-maker could assess whether the proposed payment would make him an unreasonable burden on Ireland’s social assistance system before any payments were made.
The applicant, Gheorghe Griga, came to Ireland in June 2012, aged 66, to live with his daughter and son-in-law. He had a Romanian pension of about €20 a week and had not worked for some years because of a back injury, according to the judgment. He applied for the Irish pension in September 2014. A Deciding Officer refused the application, an Appeals Officer rejected his appeal, and the Chief Appeals Officer later declined to review that decision.
Mr Griga sought judicial review of the Chief Appeals Officer’s November 2016 decision. He argued that a person could not be an unreasonable burden before receiving assistance, and that the pension could have been granted for a limited period before the burden assessment was made. He also argued that EU law required a different approach to the right-to-reside condition in Irish legislation.
The court considered EU decisions including Brey and Dano, and an earlier High Court case, Munteanu. It rejected the argument that assistance had to be paid for some period before an unreasonable-burden assessment could take place. The assessment could take account of the likely duration of a benefit being sought, the judgment said. It also observed that the assessment concerned the effect of granting the benefit to people in similar circumstances, rather than the effect of one person’s claim alone.
The judgment said the pension was intended to continue indefinitely while eligibility conditions remained satisfied, even though entitlement could end if those conditions ceased to be met. It found no error of law in treating the payment as permanent rather than temporary for the assessment.
There was no dispute over the factual findings in the Chief Appeals Officer’s decision, and it was common ground that Mr Griga did not have sufficient resources to support himself. The High Court concluded that the decision-maker was entitled to find that he lacked sufficient resources to avoid becoming an unreasonable burden. Because the statutory entitlement required habitual residence, which in turn depended on a right to reside, the court said he had no right to claim the pension. It dismissed the judicial review application; it did not grant an order quashing the decision.