Case Study: Solovastru & Anor v The Minister for Social Protection  IEHC 532
The first named applicant sought a judicial review of a number of decisions in relation to his application for jobseekers allowance, welfare allowance and rent supplement.
The second named applicant sought to judicially review the decision in relation to her application for child benefit.
The first named applicant, a Romanian national, arrived in the state in September 2004. He first worked as a carpenter, then for a company and was subsequently self-employed from 2007 to 2008 as a metal fixer. He stated that he was not aware that a work permit was required to work in the state. The second named applicant came into the state in February 2007 with her three children, and a further three children were born to her in the state.
The first named applicant was refused jobseekers allowance in 2009, and his appeal was refused in 2010. He was also advised that he did not meet the requirements to receive welfare allowance and rent supplement. The second named defendant was refused child benefit in April 2009.
The respondents contended that the applications for leave to apply for judicial review were not made promptly and consequently the applicants were not entitled to bring their applications. The second named applicant failed to explain why she did not make an application for judicial review promptly. Due to this delay the High Court was satisfied that she was not entitled to seek leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision to disallow her the provision of child benefit
The respondent contended that the first named applicant failed to act promptly in bringing an application for certiorari. The High Court held that the applications for relief by way of certiorari could be maintained as there was correspondence taking place between the solicitors on behalf of the applicant and so he was trying to deal with the matter and acting promptly.
The first named applicant was permitted to reside in the jurisdiction as a self-employed person, but since he is no longer self-employed he is no longer entitled to a right of residence. The High Court acknowledged that under EU regulations the right of EU citizens to reside in another member is restricted. The first named applicant was unlawfully present in the country prior to the accession of Romania to the European Union. He was subsequently engaged in paid employment, but by virtue of the transitional measures contained in Annex 7 in relation to Romanian nationals, he was still bound by existing national rules and obliged to have a work permit to enter into employment.
This means that he was not lawfully employed in the jurisdiction and did not have a right of residence and so is not entitled to seek jobseekers allowance without a work permit.
The issue in relation to supplementary welfare allowance and rent supplement was dependent on the outcome of the situation in relation to jobseekers allowance. Therefore the court concluded that the first named applicant was not entitled to those allowances either and there is no basis for challenging the decisions made by the respondent in respect of those allowances.