Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>NVH v Minister for Justice & Equality and Ors [2017]
NVH v Minister for Justice & Equality and Ors [2017]
Published on: 07/06/2017
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 provided that a person seeking asylum is entitled to enter the State and remain here while the application for refugee status is processed. Section 9(4) also provided however, inter alia, that an applicant shall not seek or enter employment before final determination of his or her application for a declaration. Pending the determination of an application for refugee status, applicants are required to live in State provided accommodation known as Direct Provision, and provided in addition with an allowance of €19 per week. In this particular case the applicant was in the system for more than eight years, and during that time was prohibited from seeking employment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the absolute prohibition on employment in section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 is unconstitutional. O’Donnell J. noted that it was the absolute ban that was the problem, not a limited ban as such, and stated, "However, since this situation arises because of the intersection of a number of statutory provisions, and could arguably be met by alteration of some one or other of them, and since that is first and foremost a matter for executive and legislative judgement, I would adjourn consideration of the order the Court should make for a period of six months and invite the parties to make submissions on the form of the order in the light of circumstances then obtaining."

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/bba87f6e90ea3c5d80258130004199fe?OpenDocument

The Department of Justice and Equality issued a statement on the Supreme Court ruling on the right of asylum seekers to work, which included the following:

"The question of the right to work is closely intertwined with the processing times for first instance decisions. In many EU Member States, the right to work is not an unfettered right, often arising after a particular period of time – usually 9 months to a year – and in many instances limited to particular job categories, etc. For example in Sweden and Portugal the granting of a right to work coincides with the withdrawal of financial supports. One of the principle aims of the International Protection Act is to process cases as quickly as possible so that persons who are granted a permission to stay have an automatic right to work. Providing a legal or practical limitation on the time taken to process an application for asylum is one option mentioned in the Judgement that may be permissible. This will be a matter for further consideration."

More: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/SP17000184

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 07/06/2017
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →