Objective State Records, Self‑Generated Tax Returns and Abuse of Rights under the Free Movement Regime:
Commentary on Nisa v The Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 647

---

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the High Court of Ireland in Nisa v The Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 647, a judicial review challenge to a review decision revoking an EU Treaty Rights residence card. The judgment is notable not for the revocation itself – which the applicant effectively accepted – but for the Court’s treatment of an adverse finding that the applicant had submitted false and/or misleading documentation concerning the exercise of EU Treaty rights by her EU citizen spouse.

The case therefore sits at the intersection of:

• the EU free movement regime (Directive 2004/38/EC and the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015),
• domestic administrative law standards of judicial review, and
• the evidential burden on applicants to demonstrate the exercise of EU Treaty rights and avoid “abuse of rights” findings under Regulation 27.

The applicant, a Pakistani national married to a Romanian citizen, was granted a residence card in 2016. Concerns later arose about:

• whether her marriage was a marriage of convenience; and
• whether her husband had genuinely been exercising his EU Treaty rights in Ireland through self‑employment.

On review, the Minister abandoned the marriage of convenience finding but maintained that the applicant had submitted false and/or misleading information and documents regarding her husband’s alleged economic activity in the State. The applicant, who had since been granted refugee status, accepted that her derived right of residence no longer subsisted (her EU spouse having left the State), but sought to clear her name by attacking the finding of fraud/abuse.

The key legal issues included:

• whether the Minister’s conclusion that the applicant submitted false and/or misleading documentation was irrational or disproportionate;
• whether the Minister failed to take relevant material into account – in particular, the joint nature of tax assessments and their attribution of income; and
• whether the Minister provided adequate reasons for the abuse/fraud finding under Regulation 27.

O’Donnell J refused the application for judicial review, thereby upholding the Minister’s finding that the applicant had provided false and/or misleading information in support of her EU residence rights claim. The judgment clarifies the evidential standards for proving the exercise of EU Treaty rights and the threshold for characterising inconsistent or unsupported documentation as “false and/or misleading” in the context of Regulation 27.

---

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Procedural issues: Extension of time

The application for leave to seek judicial review was technically out of time under Order 84, rule 21 RSC (filed on 25 May 2023, five days outside the three‑month limit from the decision of 20 February 2023). The Court:

• reaffirmed that pre‑action correspondence does not stop the limitation clock in judicial review;
• emphasised that parties who are legally represented and dealing with relatively straightforward material have “very little justification” for failing to comply with time limits; but
• accepted that unforeseen difficulties with the originally instructed counsel – necessitating the late instruction of new counsel who then acted expeditiously – constituted “good and sufficient reason” for a short extension of time.

Time was therefore extended, and the substantive challenge proceeded.

2.2 Core factual background

• The applicant, a Pakistani national, married a Romanian citizen, Mr Vasile Turcan, in the UK in 2014, and they moved to Ireland in 2015.
• She was granted a residence card in 2016 as the family member of an EU citizen exercising Treaty rights.
• In 2020 the Minister raised concerns based on:
  • a prior UK decision treating the marriage as a sham (later not relied on);
  • complicated personal relationships (including a child with another man while still married to Mr Turcan); and
  • most importantly for this case, an apparent lack of evidence that Mr Turcan had been genuinely self‑employed or engaged in economic activity in Ireland between 2015 and 2019.
• DEASP records showed only one year (2016) of Class S PRSI contributions by Mr Turcan, with no other recorded employment, income or earnings; he claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance briefly in 2019 and then left the State.
• The applicant responded by submitting:
  • self‑assessment income tax returns and a statement of liability;
  • narrative explanations asserting that Mr Turcan operated an electronics repair business from their home address; and
  • supporting statements from a landlord and others as to his residence and purported activity.
• The Minister’s first instance decision (December 2020) revoked the residence card, finding:
  • the marriage to be one of convenience; and
  • that the applicant had submitted false and misleading information about Mr Turcan’s self‑employment and exercise of Treaty rights.
• On review, the Minister:
  • set aside the marriage‑of‑convenience finding, accepting insufficient evidence for that conclusion; but
  • upheld the finding that the applicant had submitted false/misleading documentation regarding the exercise of Treaty rights, amounting to an abuse of rights under Regulation 27, and confirmed revocation of the residence card (prospectively from 9 December 2020).

2.3 Findings of the High Court

The High Court held:

• Adequacy of reasons: The Minister had provided sufficient reasons to explain:
  • why she did not accept that Mr Turcan was exercising EU Treaty rights in Ireland after 2016; and
  • why she concluded that the applicant’s submitted Revenue documentation was false and/or misleading in light of DEASP records and the absence of independent corroboration.
• Relevant considerations: The Minister had:
  • considered the tax returns, including the fact of joint assessment;
  • understood that much of the recorded income related to the applicant herself; and
  • was nonetheless entitled to prefer DEASP records and the absence of corroborating business documentation over self‑generated tax returns.
• Rationality: The decision was not irrational or circular. It did not pivot solely on a misreading of the 2019 tax return, nor on the missing back page of that document. Rather, viewed in context, it rested on:
  • an absence of DEASP records of economic activity beyond 2016;
  • a dearth of contemporaneous business documentation (invoices, accounts, receipts, etc.); and
  • the Minister’s reasonable preference for official DEASP data over uncorroborated self‑assessment forms.
• Abuse of rights / false or misleading information: Given that it was reasonably open to the Minister to find that Mr Turcan was not exercising Treaty rights in the relevant period, it was similarly open to find that the applicant’s submissions and documentation asserting the contrary were “false and/or misleading” and thus fell within Regulation 27 (fraud/abuse).

The application for judicial review was accordingly refused. The Court provisionally indicated that costs should follow the event in favour of the Minister, subject to further submissions.

---

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Legal framework: EU Free Movement and the 2015 Regulations

The decision operates within the framework of:

• Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; and
• its transposition into Irish law by the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 (“the 2015 Regulations”).

The key provisions in play include:

• Regulation 6(3) (exercise of Treaty rights), which requires an EU citizen (here, Mr Turcan) to be:
  • a worker, self‑employed person, or otherwise economically active within the meaning of the Directive in the host State; and
  • residing in the State in the exercise of those rights.
• Regulation 11(2), imposing a duty on non‑EU family members to notify the Minister of changes in circumstances (e.g. cessation of the relationship or departure of the EU citizen from the State) that might affect their derived right of residence.
• Regulation 25, providing for an internal review mechanism of first instance decisions relating to residence cards and associated matters.
• Regulation 27(1), which expressly empowers the Minister to:

  “revoke, refuse to make or refuse to grant … a residence card … where he or she decides, in accordance with this Regulation, that the right, entitlement or status … is being claimed on the basis of fraud or abuse of rights.”

At EU level, Regulation 27 mirrors Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC, which permits Member States to adopt necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred by the Directive in cases of “abuse of rights or fraud” (such as marriages of convenience, or fabricated employment/self‑employment).

A critical doctrinal point reiterated by O’Donnell J is that the right of residence of a non‑EU family member is a derived right. It exists only so long as the EU citizen is:

• residing in the host Member State; and
• exercising EU Treaty rights there in accordance with the Directive and the Regulations.

3.2 The factual matrix examined by the Court

The Court’s analysis proceeds against a detailed factual background. Key elements include:

• Marriage and residence:
  • Applicant: Pakistani national.
  • Marriage: to Romanian citizen, Mr Vasile Turcan, in the UK in May 2014.
  • Move to Ireland: June 2015; residence card granted March 2016 under the EU Treaty Rights regime.
• UK background:
  • UK authorities refused the applicant a residence card in 2014, deeming the marriage a sham.
  • An appeal was initiated but not pursued when the applicant left the UK.
• DEASP and Revenue data:
  • DEASP records showed:
    • 52 Class S PRSI contributions by Mr Turcan in 2016;
    • no other official record of employment, income or earnings in the State; and
    • a short Jobseeker’s Allowance claim in 2019, after which he left the State.
  • The applicant herself had DEASP earnings for 2016–2020, but those did not prove that Mr Turcan was exercising Treaty rights.
• Applicant’s narrative and documentation:
  • She asserted that Mr Turcan operated an electronics repair business from 2015–2019.
  • She submitted:
    • self‑assessment tax returns (2015–2018) and a 2019 statement of liability;
    • landlord letters confirming residence and describing the relationship as “marriage‑like”;
    • a statement from Mr Turcan referring to the relationship; and
    • explanations of financial difficulties and his reliance on her support.
  • However, the returns:
    • showed minimal or no trading profits in key years (especially 2017 and 2018); and
    • in the 2018 return, attributed income to “emoluments – spouse”, suggesting earnings were attributable to the applicant.
• 2019 statement of liability:
  • Critical controversy surrounded a 2019 Revenue document which, on its face (the page initially submitted), appeared to show income of €12,433 for 2019.
  • The business was recorded as having ceased trading in December 2018, creating a perceived inconsistency.
  • The applicant later admitted she had failed to include the back page of the document, which would have clarified that the 2019 income was attributable to her own employment/benefits, not to Mr Turcan’s business.

The thrust of the Minister’s position – and ultimately the Court’s reasoning – was that, apart from limited 2016 Class S contributions, there was no objective, independent record of significant or continuous economic activity by Mr Turcan in Ireland, notwithstanding his alleged self‑employment.

3.3 The issues as framed before the Court

The applicant sought a partial order of certiorari, specifically quashing:

• the portion of the review decision that found she had “submitted and sought to rely on documentation and/or information that she knew to be false and/or misleading” to obtain a derived right of residence, and
• the consequent conclusion that this amounted to an abuse of rights under Regulation 27.

She did not challenge:

• the revocation of the residence card itself (accepted as inevitable once Mr Turcan had left Ireland and ceased exercising Treaty rights); or
• the abandonment of the marriage‑of‑convenience finding (which was in her favour).

In her written submissions, the applicant’s case crystallised into three questions:

1. Was the conclusion that she submitted false and/or misleading information irrational, ultra vires or disproportionate?
2. Did the Minister fail to take account of relevant factors (particularly the joint nature and attribution of income in the tax returns)?
3. Did the Minister provide adequate reasons for the conclusion?

3.4 Precedents cited and their influence on the decision

3.4.1 Z.K. v Minister for Justice [2023] IECA 254

Z.K. concerned review of a Ministerial decision under the 2015 Regulations in a marriage‑of‑convenience context. Power J. stressed that judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of the process, not with whether the Minister was correct on the merits:

“it is important to recall that the issue before the Court is not whether the Minister was correct in concluding that ZK's marriage was one of convenience, but, rather, whether the process which led to the Minister's decision was vitiated by an error of such significance that the decision ought to be set aside.”

O’Donnell J adopts and applies this framing: the High Court is not re‑determining whether Mr Turcan did, in fact, work in Ireland, but whether the Minister’s conclusion – that he did not, and that submissions to the contrary were false or misleading – was reached lawfully, rationally and on a sufficiently solid evidential basis.

3.4.2 Abbas v Minister for Justice and Equality [2021] IECA 16

In Abbas, the Court of Appeal (Binchy J.) addressed a “permitted family member” dependency claim and emphasised the central importance of vouching or supporting documentation as opposed to mere assertions:

“While the statements are necessary … it is really only the supporting or vouching documentation that constitutes evidence… Without such supporting or vouching documentation, the [Minister] would have great difficulty adjudicating favourably upon an application for residency.”

O’Donnell J explicitly extends this principle to the present, analogous context: where the critical question is whether an EU citizen spouse was genuinely exercising Treaty rights, the Minister is entitled – and indeed expected – to look for objective, contemporaneous, documentary evidence of self‑employment or other economic activity, not merely self‑serving narratives or self‑generated tax returns.

3.4.3 Shishu v Minister for Justice and Equality [2021] IECA 1

Shishu is of central importance on the standard of review. Haughton J held that in EU Treaty rights cases, the reviewing court must be satisfied that:

“the Impugned Decision was made on a sufficiently solid factual basis, and that the reasons given were justified on a rational basis that took into account the personal circumstances of the applicants.”

The Court of Appeal in Shishu also underlined that:

• although the Minister has a discretion to make further inquiries on review, there is no obligation to do so; and
• the process “is not a joint venture in which there is some ill‑defined obligation on the Minister to assist applicants.”

O’Donnell J adopts this framework explicitly (para. 71–72), using it to:

• measure whether the Minister’s decision in Nisa rested on a “sufficiently solid factual basis”; and
• reaffirm that the burden lay on the applicant to substantiate her claim that her husband was exercising Treaty rights – it was not for the Minister to complete or cure deficiencies in her evidence.

3.4.4 G.K. v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 IR 418

G.K. establishes a presumption that where a decision maker states that he or she has considered “all the materials” submitted, that statement is to be taken as correct unless there is evidence to the contrary.

This principle is deployed to rebut the applicant’s contention that the Minister failed to consider that:

• the Revenue returns were joint assessments; and
• that the income recorded in certain years was attributable primarily to the applicant rather than to Mr Turcan.

O’Donnell J notes that the Minister’s review decision:

• expressly recorded having considered all submissions and documents; and
• showed awareness of joint assessment and of the applicant’s own earnings.

Absent evidence that the Minister ignored these features, the Court applies the G.K. presumption and rejects the argument that relevant factors were not taken into account.

3.4.5 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31

Clarke C.J. in Connelly set out the now‑canonical test for adequacy of reasons:

• the person affected is entitled to know, in general terms, why the decision was made; and
• reasons must be sufficient to allow the person to determine whether there are grounds to challenge the decision (by appeal or judicial review).

O’Donnell J applies this standard and holds that the applicant was:

• well aware of the Minister’s specific concern – a lack of evidence that Mr Turcan was exercising Treaty rights, based on DEASP data and the absence of corroborating business records; and
• clearly informed that the Minister regarded the Revenue returns as self‑generated and inconsistent with official records, and therefore insufficient or unreliable.

This, the Court holds, met the Connelly threshold.

3.4.6 R.A. v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 378

In R.A., Ferriter J criticised a Ministerial decision that had:

• labelled a marriage a marriage of convenience; and
• treated the marriage itself as constituting “fraud or abuse” without identifying any falsified documentation or misstatement of basic facts.

Ferriter J observed (para. 68) that there had been no forged documents or misstatements about critical factual matters like residence; the dispute was about the characterisation of the marriage, not about the truth of underlying facts. He found the Minister’s reasoning circular.

In Nisa, the applicant sought to import this analysis, arguing that:

• the Minister had effectively treated disagreement over the characterisation of her husband’s economic activity as “fraud”; and
• the decision was similarly circular, particularly given the later revelation about the missing page of the 2019 tax document.

O’Donnell J distinguishes R.A. sharply:

• In R.A., there was no suggestion that documentation (like the marriage certificate) was itself false.
• Here, by contrast, there was a direct contradiction between:
  • self‑generated Revenue documents and submissions advanced to establish Treaty rights; and
  • DEASP records and the almost complete absence of independent evidence of business activity.
• This contradiction grounded a factual finding that the documents and statements about Mr Turcan’s economic activity were “false and/or misleading”.

Accordingly, the Court holds that the Minister’s conclusion was not circular in the R.A. sense; it flowed from an evidential conflict and an assessment of credibility.

3.4.7 S.S.A. v Minister for Justice [2023] IEHC 32

S.S.A. is referenced by the respondent (rather than the Court) as a case where similar reasoning was upheld, contrasting with R.A.. While O’Donnell J does not rely substantively on S.S.A., its mention underscores that recent Irish jurisprudence has drawn a line between:

• mere disagreements over characterisation (e.g. whether a marriage is genuine), and
• situations where documentation or claims are objectively inconsistent with reliable State records and uncorroborated by independent evidence.

3.5 The Court’s legal reasoning

3.5.1 Adequacy of reasons

The applicant contended that:

• it was unclear what specific materials had been deemed false or misleading;
• the nature of the alleged contradiction between DEASP and Revenue data was not explained; and
• the Minister had not addressed submissions that low income, or financial support from the applicant, did not in itself negate the exercise of Treaty rights.

O’Donnell J rejected this, emphasising:

• The applicant had been repeatedly told that the core concern was whether there was adequate evidence that Mr Turcan was exercising Treaty rights in Ireland from 2015–2020.
• The Minister:
  • set out the obligations of a genuine self‑employed person (tax returns, records, PRSI, USC, books and records);
  • identified that, beyond 2016, DEASP held no records of employment or earnings for Mr Turcan; and
  • identified the absence of typical business records one would expect from even a modest self‑employed activity.
• Against that background, the decision explained why the Minister did not accept that the Revenue self‑assessments – which were:
  • self‑generated,
  • unsupported by underlying documents, and
  • inconsistent with DEASP data –
  could be taken at face value.
• It followed that, insofar as these documents and accompanying submissions were deployed to persuade the Minister that Mr Turcan was working in Ireland, they were characterised as false and/or misleading.

The Court held that a reasonable reader could understand both:

• why the Minister concluded that Treaty rights were not being exercised; and
• how this led to an abuse/fraud finding.

This met the Connelly standard: the applicant clearly knew the basis on which she wished to challenge the decision (as evidenced by the detailed grounds advanced).

3.5.2 Consideration of relevant material

The applicant argued that the Minister failed to:

• properly interpret the tax returns as joint assessments;
• appreciate that much of the income in the returns related to the applicant’s own employment; and
• understand that low or sporadic earnings, or reliance on spousal support, do not negate the exercise of Treaty rights as a matter of EU law.

O’Donnell J rejected these arguments, for several reasons:

• The Minister explicitly stated that all submissions and documents had been considered, triggering the G.K. presumption.
• The decision refers to joint assessment and to the applicant’s own earnings, indicating that these points were not ignored.
• The Court found that the applicant was wrong to treat the 2019 Revenue document as the central piece of evidence; it was merely one strand among many.
• The real issue concerned the overall evidential picture:
  • DEASP showed almost no economic activity by Mr Turcan beyond 2016;
  • no underlying business records (invoices, accounts, receipts, contracts, etc.) were produced, despite clear invitations from the Minister; and
  • the Revenue returns – even taken at their highest – did not convincingly establish consistent self‑employment.

Thus, the Court concludes that the Minister did not fail to consider relevant material; rather, she:

• considered it,
• found it inadequate or inconsistent, and
• was entitled to prefer objective State records (DEASP) to unsupported self‑assessment forms.

3.5.3 Rationality and the “2019 document” controversy

Central to the applicant’s irrationality argument was the claim that the Minister’s fraud finding turned on a misinterpretation of the 2019 statement of liability, exacerbated by the omission of the back page when she first submitted it. She contended that:

• the Minister should have realised from the pattern of prior joint assessments that the 2019 document was also joint;
• any inference that the business was still active in 2019 was thus misconceived; and
• once the missing page was appreciated, the foundation for the fraud finding evaporated.

The Minister responded – and the Court accepted – that:

• The burden was on the applicant to provide complete and clear evidence; the omission of the back page was her own error and could not be visited on the Minister.
• The decision did not hinge solely, or even primarily, on the 2019 document. Rather, it was part of a wider pattern of:
  • sparse evidence of genuine self‑employment;
  • a lack of corroborating business records; and
  • inconsistencies with DEASP data.
• Even if the 2019 document were put entirely to one side, the remaining evidential deficiencies and contradictions were sufficient to sustain the conclusion that Mr Turcan was not exercising Treaty rights and that the applicant’s submissions asserting otherwise were misleading.

Applying the Shishu standard, O’Donnell J held that the Minister’s conclusion rested on a sufficiently solid factual basis and was rationally justified. It was entirely open to the Minister, in the face of:

• almost no official record of earnings by Mr Turcan, and
• no independent corroboration of his alleged self‑employment,

to find that he was not exercising Treaty rights and that the applicant’s contrary assertions, supported only by self‑generated tax forms, were false and/or misleading.

3.6 Treatment of evidence: self‑generated tax returns vs objective State records

A key contribution of this judgment lies in its implicit hierarchy of evidential weight in EU Treaty rights cases:

• Objective State records (DEASP, official employment records) are given primary importance when determining whether an EU citizen has actually engaged in economic activity in the State.
• Self‑generated Revenue documents (self‑assessment forms, returns, and statements of liability), when:
  • unsupported by underlying business documentation; and
  • inconsistent with DEASP records;
  may be discounted as unreliable and even characterised as false and/or misleading.
• Narrative explanations – about financial difficulties, low earnings, or the need for spousal support – cannot compensate for the absence of corroborative documentation.

By relying on Abbas, the Court underscores that what matters are vouching documents capable of independent verification (e.g. invoices, bank statements, contracts, client correspondence), not simply assertions or carefully curated tax forms.

This approach has important practical implications:

• Applicants must understand that bare tax returns are not enough, especially if they conflict with other official data.
• Where there is a clear contradiction between:
  • self‑generated tax documentation submitted by the applicant, and
  • objective State records such as DEASP data,
  the Minister is entitled to prefer the latter and treat the former as potentially fraudulent or misleading.

3.7 Abuse of rights and fraud under Regulation 27

The Court’s application of Regulation 27 is doctrinally significant. It accepts that:

• Once the Minister was entitled to conclude that Mr Turcan was not exercising Treaty rights,
• it followed that documents and statements submitted specifically to demonstrate that he was exercising such rights – but which were found inconsistent and unsupported – could reasonably be categorised as false and/or misleading.

Unlike R.A., where there were no allegedly falsified documents, Nisa involves a direct clash between:

• self‑generated, uncorroborated tax assessments; and
• DEASP records and the near total absence of objective indicators of self‑employment.

In this situation, the threshold for “fraud or abuse of rights” is met on the Court’s analysis. That is important because:

• an abuse finding is more serious than a mere determination that the conditions for residence are not met – it carries potential collateral consequences (e.g. for future immigration or naturalisation applications);
• the Court nonetheless holds that such a finding can lawfully be made where:
  • the applicant’s documentation is both inconsistent with official records and uncorroborated; and
  • it is deployed specifically to secure EU residence rights.

---

4. Clarifying Complex Legal Concepts

4.1 Judicial review vs appeal

Judicial review (JR) is a procedure to challenge the legality of the decision‑making process, not to appeal the merits of the decision. The Court asks:

• Was the decision within the powers conferred by law?
• Was the correct legal test applied?
• Was the decision based on a rational and sufficiently solid factual basis?
• Were relevant factors considered and irrelevant ones disregarded?
• Were adequate reasons given?

It does not ask whether it would have reached the same decision on the facts. That is the essence of the approach in Z.K. and Shishu.

4.2 Certiorari and partial certiorari

Certiorari is a quashing order: it sets aside a decision (or part of it) for legal error. Partial certiorari seeks to quash only a discrete aspect of a decision, leaving the rest intact.

In Nisa, the applicant did not try to reinstate her residence card. She accepted that, as her EU spouse had left Ireland, she no longer met the substantive criteria. Instead, she sought to quash only the finding that she had submitted false/misleading information, because of potential reputational and future immigration consequences. This illustrates that JR can be used to target specific adverse findings even where the ultimate outcome (here, revocation) is not contested.

4.3 Derived rights of residence and exercise of EU Treaty rights

Non‑EU family members of EU citizens enjoy a derived right of residence. It depends on:

• the EU citizen being present in the host State; and
• the EU citizen exercising Treaty rights (working, self‑employed, studying with sufficient resources, etc.).

If the EU citizen:

• leaves the State, or
• ceases to be economically active (without falling into a protected category under the Directive),

the derived right of the non‑EU family member generally falls away (subject to specific retention provisions, which did not arise centrally here). Nisa is a stark example: the applicant ultimately accepted that once her husband left Ireland in 2019 and was not exercising Treaty rights, she had no ongoing EU‑law entitlement to a residence card.

4.4 Abuse of rights and fraud in the EU free movement context

“Abuse of rights” and “fraud” under Directive 2004/38/EC and the 2015 Regulations typically encompass:

• marriages of convenience;
• fabricated employment or self‑employment;
• use of forged or falsified documents; or
• deliberate misrepresentation of material facts (e.g. residence, family status, employment).

The key point is that EU free movement rights are not absolute; they can be refused, terminated or withdrawn if obtained or maintained by abuse or fraud. Nisa confirms that:

• submitting self‑generated tax documents that are:
  • inconsistent with objective State records; and
  • unsupported by normal business documentation,
  may cross the line from mere insufficiency of evidence into misleading the authorities and thus abuse under Regulation 27.

4.5 Duty of candour (briefly)

The applicant initially alleged a failure of the Minister’s duty of candour in JR proceedings (the obligation on public authorities to act with openness and honesty, disclosing relevant material to the Court). At the hearing, this argument was abandoned. O’Donnell J observed that it was “not at all apparent” that there had been any genuine issue of candour. The point plays no substantive role in the reasoning but serves as a reminder that such allegations should not be made lightly.

4.6 Time limits and extension of time

Under Order 84 RSC, applications for leave to seek JR must ordinarily be brought within three months from the date of the decision. The Court may extend time if there is:

• good and sufficient reason for the delay; and
• the circumstances causing the delay were outside the applicant’s control or could not reasonably have been anticipated.

Nisa reinforces that:

• engaging in pre‑action correspondence does not suspend time limits;
• being legally represented and dealing with relatively straightforward material makes it harder to justify delay; but
• unforeseen difficulties with instructed counsel that are promptly addressed can amount to “good and sufficient reason” for a short extension.

---

5. Impact and Significance

5.1 For EU Treaty rights applicants and practitioners

The judgment sets a clear practical standard for applicants (and their advisers):

• Burden of proof: The onus is squarely on the applicant to demonstrate that the EU citizen is, or was, exercising Treaty rights. The Minister is not obliged to seek out further evidence or to repair gaps in the applicant’s case.
• Quality of evidence:
  • Self‑generated tax returns, without underlying documentation and in tension with DEASP records, will carry limited weight.
  • Applicants should expect to produce:
    • business accounts;
    • invoices and receipts;
    • bank statements showing trading activity;
    • correspondence with customers or suppliers; and
    • consistent tax and social insurance records.
• Risks of adverse findings: Even where an applicant accepts that a residence permission can lawfully be revoked (as here, because the EU spouse left the State), how the Minister characterises the past conduct matters. An abuse/fraud finding may affect:
  • future immigration or visa applications;
  • naturalisation applications (as the applicant in Nisa feared); and
  • overall credibility in dealings with the immigration system.

Practitioners must therefore:

• scrutinise the completeness and reliability of any tax documentation before submission;
• avoid submitting incomplete documents (such as missing pages) that may appear misleading; and
• proactively supply independent corroboration of claimed self‑employment or work.

5.2 For administrative decision‑makers

For the Minister and similar decision‑makers, the judgment:

• endorses a cautious approach to self‑generated documents, allowing them to be:
  • discounted where inconsistent with objective State records; and
  • treated as misleading if deployed to assert facts that official data undermine.
• Reinforces the importance of:
  • clearly identifying the information and documents expected (e.g. the obligations of a person genuinely self‑employed);
  • explaining why particular evidence is found insufficient or contradictory; and
  • stating explicitly that all submitted materials have been considered.
• Clarifies that decisions to invoke Regulation 27 (fraud/abuse) will withstand JR if:
  • they are grounded in demonstrable contradictions between an applicant’s documents and reliable State records;
  • there is an absence of corroborating documentation; and
  • reasoning is sufficiently articulated to meet the Connelly standard.

5.3 For judicial review litigation

The judgment contributes to Irish JR jurisprudence by:

• confirming the approach in Shishu, Z.K. and Abbas to:
  • the “sufficiently solid factual basis” standard;
  • the emphasis on vouching documents; and
  • the non‑“joint venture” nature of the administrative process.
• illustrating the use of partial certiorari where the real dispute concerns adverse findings rather than the net outcome.
• clarifying that even a relatively short, seemingly innocuous delay (five days) in commencing JR requires a proper justification, though the Court may show flexibility where justified (e.g. unforeseen counsel difficulties).

---

6. Conclusion

Nisa v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 647 stands as an important clarification of the evidential and legal standards governing:

• proof of the exercise of EU Treaty rights by an EU citizen spouse;
• the weight to be attached to self‑generated tax documentation as against objective State records; and
• the circumstances in which inconsistent or unsupported documentation may legitimately be treated as “false and/or misleading” and amount to an abuse of rights under Regulation 27 of the 2015 Regulations.

The High Court affirmed that:

• judicial review scrutinises the process and rationality of EU Treaty rights decisions, not their merits;
• applicants shoulder the burden of proof and must provide robust, corroborated evidence of economic activity; and
• the Minister may, without acting irrationally, prefer DEASP records and the absence of corroboration over self‑assessment tax forms and narrative accounts.

For applicants and practitioners, the message is clear: unsupported self‑generated documents are not just weak evidence; in some circumstances they can ground an explicit finding of fraud or abuse, with lasting consequences beyond the immediate residence decision. For the administration, the judgment provides a roadmap for drafting robust, reasoned decisions that will withstand judicial review, and confirms that Regulation 27 is a potent tool where abuse is genuinely evidenced.