The High Court quashed a 2014 decision to make a removal order against Latvian national Robert Grackovs, finding that the decision-maker had failed to establish whether he had acquired a permanent right of residence in Ireland before considering his removal.
Ms Justice Stewart said the omission was sufficient to set aside the decision. She reserved the question of the form of the appropriate order for further submissions from counsel. The judgment does not record a final order on that point or determine whether a removal order could be made after a fresh assessment.
The Minister for Justice decided on 15 April 2014 to make a removal order under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006 and 2008. The decision also imposed a five-year exclusion period from the date of removal. It followed a proposal issued in July 2013 and submissions from Mr Grackovs, including information about his employment and a rehabilitation work scheme.
The decision was based on a lengthy record of criminal charges, convictions and contacts with Gardaí. The Minister’s file also considered his time in Ireland, family and economic circumstances, social and cultural integration, health, links to Latvia and private-life rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Officials concluded that removal was justified on serious grounds of public policy and proportionate to preventing disorder and crime.
Mr Grackovs argued that the Minister had relied on past criminal matters without establishing that his personal conduct represented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. He also challenged the regulations’ compliance with EU law and alleged, among other things, that delay in reaching the decision was unreasonable. The State argued that the case was premature because he had not sought an internal review, denied that the delay was excessive, and defended the decision as reasoned and proportionate.
The court focused on a different issue. Under the EU Citizenship Directive, it said, a Union citizen who has resided legally and continuously in a host state for five years may acquire a right of permanent residence. Such a right can be interfered with only on serious grounds of public policy or public security. The court said the ten-year period that would require imperative grounds had not been reached in this case.
Although the Minister’s assessment was detailed, the judge said it did not first determine the basis on which Mr Grackovs was entitled to reside in Ireland, including whether he had completed the qualifying five years. That question affected the level of protection against expulsion and had to be addressed before the overall decision.
The court rejected the claim that Ireland had failed to transpose the directive properly. It said the regulations could be interpreted in accordance with EU law and that the declaratory relief sought was not warranted. The judge said it was unnecessary to determine that issue definitively because quashing the removal decision was sufficient.