Fares & Ors -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & Ors [2007] IESC 65 (20 December 2007)

Fares & Ors -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & Ors [2007] IESC 65 (20 December 2007)

The IBC 05 Scheme was an administrative scheme with a clear requirement of continuous residence; the applicants did not meet this requirement. The Minister was entitled to refuse the application without considering Constitutional or Convention rights, as such rights were not engaged within the scheme. The High Court's decision was misconceived and premature.

Citation
[2007] IESC 65
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Samir Morriss Gerges Fares; Applicant/respondent: Flobater Samir Moriss Gerges Fares; Respondent/appellant: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Notice Party: Human Rights Commission; Notice Party: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Executive Power, Irish Born Child Scheme (ibc 05), Continuous Residence Requirement, Constitutional Rights, European Convention on Human Rights
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Executive Power Irish Born Child Scheme (ibc 05) Continuous Residence Requirement +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samir Morriss Gerges Fares

Applicant/respondent

Flobater Samir Moriss Gerges Fares

Applicant/respondent

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent/appellant

Human Rights Commission

Notice Party

Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's refusal under the IBC 05 Scheme breached Constitutional and Convention rights
  2. 2 Whether continuous residence requirement was lawfully applied
  3. 3 Nature of judicial review in administrative schemes

Ratio Decidendi

The IBC 05 Scheme was an administrative scheme with a clear requirement of continuous residence; the applicants did not meet this requirement. The Minister was entitled to refuse the application without considering Constitutional or Convention rights, as such rights were not engaged within the scheme. The High Court's decision was misconceived and premature.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • High Court order quashing Minister's decision reversed
  • Minister's refusal under IBC 05 Scheme reinstated