The High Court has refused a Romanian national’s judicial review challenge to the decision denying him €432 in Jobseeker’s Allowance for 5 to 27 February 2014.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered judgment on 21 July 2017. The applicant had arrived in Ireland on or about 10 January 2014 to seek work and applied for the allowance on 5 February. A deciding officer refused the claim on habitual residence grounds. A review was also refused. The applicant secured employment on 27 February 2014.
The applicant argued that EU law entitled him, as a jobseeker, to equal treatment and that the allowance should be available where he had established a genuine link with Ireland’s employment market. He also challenged the statutory presumption that a person absent from Ireland and the Common Travel Area for two continuous years is presumed not to be habitually resident. He argued that the presumption was discriminatory and incompatible with EU law.
The court held that Jobseeker’s Allowance is a special non-contributory cash benefit and a form of social assistance under EU law. It was not a benefit of a financial kind intended to facilitate access to the labour market. The court said EU law did not give the applicant an automatic entitlement to social assistance while his right to reside rested on seeking employment. Irish legislation nevertheless allowed him to apply on the same basis as Irish nationals.
The court found that the two-year presumption was rebuttable and applied equally to all applicants. It did not impose a minimum residence period before a claim could be made. Eligibility had to be assessed using the statutory factors, including length and continuity of residence, employment history, main centre of interest and future intentions. The judge found those factors had been considered in the applicant’s case and that the decision makers could take account of his lack of prior employment in Ireland and his failure to secure work before arriving.
The court concluded that the refusal was lawful and that the applicant had not established a legal flaw in the decision. It refused the judicial review application. The judgment did not award the allowance.