The High Court has refused A.M.’s application for judicial review of a rule barring international protection applicants with labour market permission from working in specified public sector bodies.
A.M., whose country of origin is not named in the judgment, entered Ireland in January 2023 and applied for international protection. He received labour market access permission on 30 August 2023. The permission allowed him to work subject to conditions, including a ban on seeking or taking jobs with bodies listed in Schedule 6 of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018.
He argued that the ban was disproportionate and unlawful, and that it denied him effective access to the labour market under the EU Reception Conditions Directive. He also relied on constitutional protections. His challenge concerned a period of about 50 days: he was granted refugee status on 19 October 2023, after which the labour market permission was no longer required.
A.M. had pharmacy and healthcare management qualifications and had worked as a pharmacist since 2005. He said he sought work in public health pharmacy and was prevented from taking it up. The court accepted that he was qualified for and seeking such work, and that the rules barred him from public sector employment while his permission applied.
However, the judge was not satisfied that A.M. had established he was offered a job interview at a Dublin hospital. Emails showed discussions with the hospital and that it understood his permission did not allow public sector work. The court also noted that A.M. had been working in a private pharmacy as a pharmacy technician. His claim that he was paid less than his experience warranted was recorded in his evidence.
The court found that Schedule 6 covered a wide range of public bodies, including public hospitals, and applied to both temporary and permanent jobs. It nevertheless concluded that the Directive did not guarantee access to an applicant’s preferred sector. In the court’s view, the private sector work available to A.M. meant that his access to the labour market was real and capable of supporting self-sufficiency.
On the constitutional claim, the judge distinguished this case from the Supreme Court’s decision in N.H.V., which concerned a blanket ban on all employment with no time limit. A.M.’s permission allowed private sector work, and the judge considered the public sector restriction substantially justified by the State’s policy interests, including concerns about pull factors and the temporary nature of applicants’ status.
The court refused the judicial review and therefore did not address damages, which had been deferred. It listed the case for further argument on costs on 11 December 2024; the judgment did not determine costs.