The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision refusing Jayshreesing Saneechur and Nikolajs Samkovs’ EU Treaty rights application, and sent the matter back to the Minister for fresh consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2021, Mr Justice Max Barrett found that the Minister’s decision of 12 October 2017 lacked a sufficiently solid factual basis. The court did not decide the residence application itself or grant a residence card. It ordered reconsideration by the Minister.
The Minister had concluded that documents submitted with the couple’s 2015 application were false and that they had knowingly relied on misleading material. The judge said a payslip error alone could not support such a serious finding, and that the record did not explain what steps officials took to contact the employer. The investigation was “disproportionately lacking in rigour” and did not produce a safe finding of fraud, he concluded.
The Minister also relied on information from the Latvian Embassy that Mr Samkovs had worked in Latvia continuously since 2015. But the decision accepted that bank statements showed regular payments to him from Irish businesses, including the Ballsbridge Hotel and Tom Hanafin Construction, from June 2016. The judge found that the Minister had not adequately investigated that evidence or explained why it was discounted. He also identified an inconsistency: the Minister accepted the later employment documents had not been found fraudulent, while concluding Mr Samkovs was working full-time in Latvia during the period of payments.
The applicants said Mr Samkovs had returned to Dublin permanently in April 2016 and worked in Ireland. They disputed any intention to submit fraudulent documents. Those were their claims; the court’s decision concerned the legality of the Minister’s review.
The judge further held that the decision imposed a blanket cessation of EU Treaty rights without assessing proportionality, contrary to Article 35 of the Citizens’ Rights Directive and regulation 27 of the 2015 free-movement regulations. He said the evidential basis for a fraud finding was absent and the Minister’s reasons did not rationally account for the applicants’ circumstances.
The couple had previously challenged an unsuccessful review through judicial review, after which that decision was withdrawn and reconsidered. The October 2017 refusal was the decision challenged in this case. On costs, the judge said the applicants appeared entitled to them. Either side could object within 14 days; absent an objection, costs would be ordered as indicated after that period.