The High Court refused an order compelling the Minister for Justice and Equality to decide a Nigerian man’s residence-card application, despite accepting that the six-month deadline under EU law had not been met.
The applicant sought judicial review after applying for a residence card as the spouse of an EU citizen. He said he had applied in November 2015. The Minister received the application on 18 November, and the six-month period expired in May 2016. The court granted leave to seek an order of mandamus on 27 June 2016.
The Minister asked for further information, including clarification of discrepancies in the applicant’s marriage certificate and evidence relating to his previous marriage. The judgment records that the applicant had denied having a criminal conviction, although he had been convicted in the UK of computer fraud in 2013 and sentenced to 15 months in prison. The applicant later said he had misunderstood the question about convictions abroad. He also explained that he had told the UK Home Office he had returned to Nigeria because he did not want UK authorities to know he was in Ireland.
The Minister requested an amended marriage certificate and other documents in June 2016, saying a decision would issue on receipt. The amended certificate was not provided. The Minister decided the application on 12 October 2016, after the judicial review proceedings had begun. The Minister accepted for this case that the Article 10 deadline had not been observed, while arguing the decision would have issued earlier but for a misunderstanding that a decision might make the proceedings moot.
The court said the question of mandamus was technically moot once the decision had issued, but heard the issue because it could be relevant to other cases. It did not determine broader questions about how the EU deadline applies where an application contains false information, saying those questions would need to be considered by the European Court of Justice.
Justice O’Regan held that the deadline must be respected and that the Minister needed a significant basis for delay to resist mandamus. She also said the applicant’s conduct was relevant to the individual assessment. The judge accepted the Minister’s explanation for the delay between July and October, and found that the applicant’s misleading statements and failure to provide the amended certificate weighed against granting relief.
The court concluded that the delay was neither an unlawful refusal to decide nor egregious in the circumstances. It excluded the period from November 2015 to March 2016 from its assessment, and said the Minister should otherwise have decided by September. It therefore refused the requested order. The judgment addressed whether mandamus should issue; it did not decide the merits of the residence-card application.