Imran v The Minister for Justice (Approved) [2025] IESC 29 (27 June 2025)

Imran v The Minister for Justice (Approved) [2025] IESC 29 (27 June 2025)

Revocation of permanent residence obtained by fraud is in itself a proportionate response under Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC; an individualised proportionality assessment regarding the personal impact on the applicant is not required where the right was obtained by fraud.

Citation
[2025] IESC 29
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Muhammad Imran; Respondent: The Minister for Justice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court; Reference to CJEU Under Article 267 TFEU
Outcome
Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU; proceedings stayed pending CJEU decision.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Permanent Residence, Fraud in Immigration Applications, Proportionality in Administrative Decisions, Interpretation of Directive 2004/38/ec Article 35
Immigration Law European Union Law Administrative Law Revocation of Permanent Residence Fraud in Immigration Applications Proportionality in Administrative Decisions Interpretation of Directive 2004/38/ec Article 35

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Imran

Appellant/applicant

The Minister for Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court; Reference to CJEU Under Article 267 TFEU

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC requires an individualised proportionality assessment before revocation of permanent residence obtained by fraud
  2. 2 Whether revocation of permanent residence on grounds of fraud is in itself proportionate under EU law

Ratio Decidendi

Revocation of permanent residence obtained by fraud is in itself a proportionate response under Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC; an individualised proportionality assessment regarding the personal impact on the applicant is not required where the right was obtained by fraud.

Court Disposition

Reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU; proceedings stayed pending CJEU decision.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings pending CJEU ruling
  • Reference of questions regarding interpretation of Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC to the CJEU