Supreme Court to hear appeal of Romanian grandmother who claims she was entitled to carer allowance
High Court reporters
The Supreme Court will hear the case of a Romanian grandmother over whether she was entitled to a carer's allowance here despite not being recognised as an "habitual" resident by the State when she applied for the payment for looking after her grandsons.
The Supreme Court determined that the matter was of public importance and was in the interests of justice that the court hear her "leapfrog" appeal directly from the High Court.
The woman took her case against respondents the Minister for Social Protection, the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General.
She and her husband came to Ireland in September 2021 and lived with her daughter and son-in-law so she could care for her two young grandsons, who have serious special needs.
The woman provided 35-hour care for her grandsons each week from when she arrived and in January 2022 and applied for the allowance, which was rejected, even though it was accepted that the children meet the threshold for requiring care under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act.
The State argues that the grandmother was not a habitual resident in the State at the time of her application but she was also refused on grounds that she had not demonstrated she had sufficient resources not to be an "unreasonable" burden on the State.
EU directives state that citizens of the EU have the right to move and live freely in member states for longer than three months if they are workers, or self-employed, have sufficient resources not to be a burden on the host state and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that country.
Appeal
The woman appealed the refusal of her allowance but was unsuccessful in an Appeals Officer decision in February 2023. She then sought a review which upheld the rejection in April 2024.
In May 2024 ,the woman and her husband returned to Romania but in the following October she was granted leave by the High Court to bring a judicial review. This, too, was ultimately unsuccessful after a ruling by Mr Justice Anthony Barr.
It was acknowledged by the judge that the woman had been provided with board, lodging and expenses but noted this was not sufficient to constitute her as being "engaged in an economic or commercial activity" necessary for her to be deemed a "worker" under EU citizen directives adopted here.
Mr Justice Barr also held that the appeals officer was entitled to come to the conclusion that, in view of her resources, she was likely to become an "unreasonable" burden on the State.
'Hardly just'
However, the woman's Supreme Court application relies on Mr Justice Barr's comments that it was "hardly just" to refuse an EU citizen the payment where she cares for her grandchildren for 35 hours a week in return for board and lodging, "in circumstances where an Irish citizen who does the same would be entitled to the allowance".
The respondents had opposed leave and contended that no matter of general public importance arose from the specifics of the facts and that it did not involve any complex questions of EU law.
In granting leave to hear the case, the Supreme Court determined that it was satisfied that general public importance did arise in the appeal over the interpretation of what defines a "worker" under EU law, which could arise in a number of other cases.
