The Court of Appeal has settled three questions for referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union in an appeal about an unemployed Romanian citizen’s application for jobseekers’ allowance. The appeal has not yet been decided, and the ruling does not determine whether he is entitled to the payment.
The appellant arrived in Ireland in October 2007 and, from October 2008 to October 2012, worked as a self-employed plasterer, paying tax, PRSI and other levies. He stopped working during the economic downturn. He said he had no income and that his son and daughter-in-law, who had supported him, were leaving for Canada.
His November 2012 application for jobseekers’ allowance was refused because he had not established a right to reside in Ireland, a condition for habitual residence under social welfare law. An internal appeal was also refused. The High Court dismissed his judicial review claim in 2013, and later declined to vary its judgment after the EU court’s ruling in Brey. He appealed.
The appellant argued that, after four years of self-employment, he retained self-employed status and a right to reside under the EU Free Movement Directive, despite stopping work involuntarily. Alternatively, he argued that EU treaty provisions gave him a continuing right to reside. The respondents relied on the directive’s wording, which refers to people who had been “employed” when setting out some circumstances for retaining worker status.
The Court of Appeal said EU law’s treatment of self-employed people who stop work raised questions requiring an EU court ruling. It also settled a question on whether refusing jobseekers’ allowance for failure to establish a right to reside is compatible with EU law, including the equal-treatment rule for social-security benefits.
The court did not refer a separate question on whether the State had to assess the individual burden the payment would place on its social-assistance system. It said the appellant had not claimed that he had sufficient resources or a right to reside on that basis, and considered that issue unnecessary to decide the appeal.
The ruling was an interim step. The court gave the parties an opportunity to consider the proposed questions before finalising the reference. It made no final decision on the appeal or the appellant’s entitlement to the allowance.