Judgment: 2011-01-28 · Court archive

High Court orders decision on delayed residence-card review within 28 days

The court left the original refusal in place but directed the Minister to decide the applicants’ administrative review.

High Court · [2011] IEHC 29

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ireland (Respondent)
What

The court left the original refusal in place but directed the Minister to decide the applicants’ administrative review.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Wicklow
  • Blessington
  • Eyre Powell Hotel
  • United Kingdom
  • Newbridge
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court held that the Minister could make reasonable inquiries into residence and other eligibility requirements, and that the address discrepancy gave a proper reason to query the application. It therefore refused to quash the August 2009 refusal as wrong or unreasonable. It also said continuous residence at the same address is not an essential condition for a married couple to qualify for a residence card. If the concern was that the marriage was a sham, the court said, the Minister had to state and prove that allegation once the couple had provided their explanation.

The High Court has ordered the Minister for Justice to decide within 28 days an administrative review of a refusal to issue a Moroccan man an EU residence card. The court did not overturn the original refusal or order that a card be issued.

The man and his Lithuanian spouse challenged the delay after the Department refused his application in August 2009. The refusal cited inconsistent address information and said the Department was not satisfied the couple lived together in Ireland. The couple had married in Wicklow in February 2009. The spouse was an EU citizen working full time in Blessington, County Wicklow.

The man said he had been required under the Direct Provision Scheme to retain an address at Eyre Powell Hotel in Newbridge, County Kildare. He said he lived with his wife at an address in Blessington four days a week and had moved there full time by the time proceedings began. The couple submitted separate bank statements addressed to the Blessington property. The judgment records that the landlord lived in the United Kingdom and had been asked for documentation about the tenancy.

The Minister’s response to the proceedings described the Department’s processing procedures and application volumes. The court said no decision had been made on the review by the hearing, about eight months after it was requested, and no further inquiries appeared to have been made to resolve the address discrepancy.

The court held that the Minister could make reasonable inquiries into residence and other eligibility requirements, and that the address discrepancy gave a proper reason to query the application. It therefore refused to quash the August 2009 refusal as wrong or unreasonable. It also said continuous residence at the same address is not an essential condition for a married couple to qualify for a residence card. If the concern was that the marriage was a sham, the court said, the Minister had to state and prove that allegation once the couple had provided their explanation.

The court found that the Minister had a duty to make any necessary inquiries and decide the review within a reasonable time. It ordered a decision within 28 days after the court order was perfected. The judgment did not decide whether the man was entitled to a residence card; that remained for the Minister to determine on review.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review