The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals brought by Romanian nationals challenging High Court decisions which halted their judicial review cases concerning deportation from Ireland.
The first proceedings involved 48 applicants, referred to collectively as Adam, while the second were brought by Florin Iordache. Their cases were heard together because they raised substantially similar issues.
A central question was whether the High Court could set aside leave to seek judicial review which another High Court judge had previously granted without notice to the State.
Mr Justice Hardiman held that it could. He said an ex parte order — one made after hearing only one side — is provisional in nature and may be reviewed under the court's inherent jurisdiction after the affected party has an opportunity to be heard. This was not an appeal from the original judge, but a separate inter partes application.
The court also rejected arguments based directly on the European Convention on Human Rights. Applying then-existing Supreme Court authority, it held that the Convention was not part of Irish domestic law and could not itself provide the legal basis advanced by the appellants.
On the substance, the Supreme Court found the proceedings fundamentally defective. The Adam applicants had not distinguished their individual circumstances or produced evidence showing a personal risk of persecution in Romania. The court described their cases as effectively interchangeable challenges to deportation to Romania rather than properly particularised judicial review claims.
Iordache's case contained somewhat more individual detail, including complaints concerning Romanian law and his personal circumstances, but the court still found the allegations vague, contradictory and unsupported by adequate evidence.
The court also ruled that it had no power to compel the Irish Government or Attorney General to institute international proceedings against Romania, as control of the State's external relations was constitutionally assigned to the Government.
Both appeals were dismissed and the High Court orders were affirmed.