High Court of Ireland Upholds State's Interpretation of EU Directive on Labour Market Access: Isaku v IPAT & Ors

Introduction

In the landmark case Isaku v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) ([2021] IEHC 806), the High Court of Ireland addressed critical issues surrounding the interpretation of Article 15 of Directive 2013/33/EU concerning access to the labour market for applicants seeking international protection. The applicant, Jürgen Isaku, an Albanian national, challenged the refusal of the Labour Market Access Unit (LMAU) to grant him permission to enter the labour market under the existing Irish regulations implementing the Directive. Central to this case was whether the state could deny labour market access based on the timing of decisions related to his protection application.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter delivered the judgment on December 17, 2021. The applicant sought a judicial review to challenge the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) that upheld the refusal of the LMAU to grant labour market access. The High Court considered the necessity of referring a specific legal question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 TFEU, which allows national courts to seek preliminary rulings on EU law interpretation.

After a thorough examination, the High Court determined that the request to refer the question to the CJEU was substantially moot. This was primarily because the applicant had subsequently obtained labour market access under amended regulations, rendering the core issue less relevant for judicial consideration. Consequently, the court refused to entertain the reference request and upheld the decision of IPAT.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment drew upon several key precedents to substantiate the court’s decision:

• Lofinmakin v Minister for Justice: Highlighted principles on mootness, emphasizing that if the primary issue is resolved, the case may be deemed moot.
• Ogieakhi v Minister for Justice: Addressed the necessity for particularization in claims for damages, asserting that vague or unsubstantiated claims cannot proceed.
• PM v Minister for Justice: Demonstrated a similar scenario where the applicant obtained labour market access after a change in circumstances, leading to mootness.
• KS & DS v Minister for Justice and other cases: Provided interpretative guidance on the definition of "applicant" under Directive 2013/33/EU and the implications for labour market access.
• Atif case C-169/18: Reinforced the principle that if the main dispute becomes devoid of purpose, referring questions to the CJEU may no longer be necessary.
• Cimade and GISTI v Council (C-179/11): Emphasized human dignity and the standard of living for asylum seekers, influencing interpretations of labour market access as part of dignified living conditions.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously dissected the provisions of Article 15 of Directive 2013/33/EU alongside their implementation in Irish law through the Reception Conditions Regulations. Central to the court's reasoning were the following points:

• Directive Interpretation: The court upheld that Article 15(1) mandates Member States to ensure access to the labour market no later than nine months from the application date if no first instance decision has been made.
• Definition of "Applicant": Relying on CJEU interpretations, the court reinforced that the term encompasses individuals awaiting final decisions, thereby legitimizing the distinctions made between different stages of the application process.
• Mootness and Locus Standi: The court concluded that the applicant's subsequent acquisition of labour market access under amended regulations negated the necessity for a CJEU reference, as the principal issue had been resolved.
• Regulatory Compliance: The judgment affirmed that the Reception Conditions Regulations, even with their discretionary language ("may"), were in conformity with the Directive's requirements when interpreted in light of national legislative obligations.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding the alleged failure of transposition and constitutional breaches, citing a lack of prima facie evidence and the absence of particularization in the damages claim.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for both national and EU law:

• Clarification of Mootness: Reinforces the principle that if the primary objective of a legal challenge is fulfilled or rendered irrelevant by subsequent actions, the case may be considered moot.
• Directive Implementation: Affirms that national regulations implementing EU Directives must be interpreted in strict conformity with the Directive's language and objectives, even when provisions are discretionary.
• Future CJEU References: Demonstrates the High Court's stringent criteria for referring questions to the CJEU, emphasizing necessity and relevance.
• Labour Market Access Policies: Validates the state's discretion in setting policies on labour market access timings, provided they align with EU Directive stipulations.

For practitioners and scholars, the judgment serves as a critical reference point for understanding the interplay between national implementation of EU Directives and judicial review mechanisms, particularly concerning procedural nuances like mootness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court of Ireland's decision in Isaku v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the integrity of both national and EU legal frameworks. By declining to refer the question to the CJEU due to the case's mootness, the court emphasized the importance of timely and relevant legal challenges. Additionally, the affirmation of the state's interpretation of Article 15 of Directive 2013/33/EU provides a clear precedent for future cases, ensuring consistency in the implementation of labour market access policies for international protection applicants.

This judgment not only resolves the immediate dispute but also contributes to the broader discourse on the balance between individual rights and state discretion within the EU asylum and labour market systems.