Zaporojan -v- The Chief Superintendent of The Garda National Immigration Bureau & anor,  IEHC 665 (2018)
|Docket Number:||2018 304 JR|
|Party Name:||Zaporojan, The Chief Superintendent of The Garda National Immigration Bureau & anor|
THE HIGH COURT2018 No. 304 JRIVAN ZAPOROJANApplicant– and –
THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF THE GARDA NATIONAL IMMIGRATION BUREAU and THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITYRespondents
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 27th November, 2018.
In 2004, Mr Zaporojan, then a non-EU national, entered Ireland using false identity documents. From December 2008 to October 2015, he made false welfare claims of over €30,000. In January 2016, he acquired Romanian nationality. In March 2017, he was convicted of 6 deception offences and custody of a false instrument and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment with 18 months suspended. On 16.03.2018, the Minister issued removal and exclusion orders against him. On 13.04.2018 the Minister affirmed these orders (the ‘Impugned Decision’). Mr Zaporojan seeks, inter alia, a quashing of the Impugned Decision.
Free Movement. When it comes to free movement of EU nationals the court recalls, inter alia: (1) the Court of Justice’s observations (a) in Case C-430/10 Gaydarov, para.32, that restrictions of that freedom “must be interpreted strictly”, (b) in Case C-348/¬¬09 PI, para.30, construing Art.27(2) of the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC) (the ‘CRD’), that expulsion “is conditional on the…personal conduct of the individual…represent[ing] a genuine, present threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or of the host Member State, which implies, in general, the existence in the individual concerned of a propensity to act in the same way in the future”; and (2) the constraints applicable under the CRD when it comes to restricting free movement on grounds of public policy/security/health.
Serious Threat/Propensity. Article 27(2)/CRD provides, inter alia, that the impugned “personal conduct of the individual…must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”. In this regard, Mr Zaporojan claims, regarding his welfare fraud, that he was but guilty of one continuous criminal activity. But, as referenced in the Impugned Decision (p.7), he is guilty of multiple instances of (prolonged) welfare fraud which only ended when he was caught. Mr Zaporojan disputes that he has a propensity to criminality but, as referenced in the Impugned Decision (p.9), the Minister’s view, open to him to take, was that Mr Zaporojan’s history “raises the question…whether Mr Zaporojan is…law-abiding and a positive member of Irish...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL