Ireland / High Court / [2012] IEHC 113 Charles Smith (a minor), Alimat Smith (a minor), Sikirat Smith, Rufai Smith, Ajoke Moriamo Smith and Omolulu Smith v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

Facts of the case:

The applicants are a husband and wife and their four children. The husband left Irland illegaly, while present there as an asylum seeker. He entered illegaly the United Kingdom, where he was engaged in criminal activities for which he was convicted. He consequently was deported from the territory of the European Union but re-entered illegally. When applying for a permission to reside in Ireland, he lied about his movements. Following the refusal of the permission to stay, the family sought to challenge that refusal in judicial review proceedings.

Outcome of the case:

The High Court refused the application for leave to seek judicial review on the ground that there had been repeated abuse by the applicant of the immigration laws of Ireland, as well as of another Member State. Such disregard for the law constituted, in the judgment of the Court, ample ground to refuse the application.

Paragraphs referring to EU Charter: 


24. It is true of course that Article 7 of the Charter corresponds to Article 8 of the Convention in that it affirms that "everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communication". However, as Article 51 of the Charter makes clear, its provisions are addressed to the institutions of the European Union and its agencies; and to the Member States "only when they are implementing Union law". The revocation of a deportation order made under s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, does not involve, as such, any implementation of Union law. It is the exercise by the State of its sovereign entitlement to decide who shall remain within the territory of the State. The removal of a third country national from the State does, of course, also remove the individual from the territory of the European Union. In circumstances such as those in the present case, however, it is only where the principle of the Zambrano judgment is applicable that the Member State comes under any obligation derived from Union law not to effect the removal. As the Minster has, correctly and lawfully in the judgment of the Court, decided in the first refusal that this was not a case in which the Zambrano principle was applicable because the deportation of Mr. Smith would clearly not result in any other member of the family leaving the European Union, that consideration cannot be said to arise in this case. 25. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that no stateable case has been made out for the grant of leave.