The High Court has dismissed a Romanian woman’s appeal against the refusal of her application for a State Pension (Non-Contributory), ruling that dependency on her daughter had to exist in Romania before she moved to Ireland to join her.
The woman, Cornelia Mocanu, has lived in Ireland since around October 2011 and is dependent on her daughter, a Romanian citizen who lives and works here. She applied for the pension in January 2020. The Department refused the application after finding she had not established a right to reside in the State. An Appeals Officer upheld that decision in January 2021.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland gave judgment on 23 September 2022. She first refused Ms Mocanu’s application to extend the time to bring the appeal. The rules required proceedings within 21 days of notification of the decision. The High Court found that the proceedings were issued on 7 April 2021, after the deadline had expired on 29 January.
The Court accepted that Ms Mocanu’s family had formed an intention to appeal within the deadline, that the appeal was not vexatious and that an extension would not prejudice third parties. But it found no justifiable excuse for the delay, which was almost four times the permitted period. The evidence described early efforts to find a solicitor during Covid-19 self-isolation, followed by about two months before a meeting with solicitors and no particular urgency in bringing the proceedings.
Justice Hyland also considered the substantive EU-law argument in case her decision on the deadline was wrong. Ms Mocanu argued that dependency arising after arrival in Ireland was sufficient for a dependent relative of an EU worker. The respondents relied on Court of Justice of the European Union case law requiring dependency to exist in the country of origin when the relative applies to join the EU citizen.
The judge held that the CJEU’s decision in Reyes answered the issue: the pre-existing dependency requirement applies to a dependent relative under the Citizenship Directive. She rejected the request to refer a question to the CJEU, finding the law clear. She also declined to consider an argument about the application of Regulation 6(5), because it had not been pleaded.
The Court dismissed the appeal. It listed a remote costs hearing for 7 October 2022, while allowing the parties to propose another date by agreement.