Griga v Chief appeals Officer & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a Romanian national born in 1945, arrived in Ireland in 2012 at the age of 66 to live with his daughter and son-in-law. Prior to arrival, he had not worked for some years due to a back injury and had no income other than a Romanian pension of approximately €20 per week. In 2014, the Applicant applied for a State pension (non-contributory) ("SPNC") in Ireland, which requires habitual residence in the State. His application was refused by a Deciding Officer and the refusal was upheld on appeal. A review request was declined by the first Respondent in a written decision dated 4 November 2016. The Applicant sought judicial review to quash that decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the "unreasonable burden" test under EU law can be applied to the Applicant prior to any payments of social assistance being made.
2. Whether the SPNC should be regarded as a permanent or temporary payment for the purposes of applying the "unreasonable burden" test.
3. Whether Irish national legislation requiring a right to reside in the State as a condition for entitlement to SPNC is compatible with EU law, particularly Directive 2004/38/EC and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that it is illogical to apply the "unreasonable burden" test to a person who has not received any social assistance payments, arguing that some payments must be made before such a test can be applied.
• He argued that the first Respondent erred in treating the SPNC as a permanent payment rather than a temporary one, proposing that the SPNC could be awarded for a finite period before assessing whether the Applicant became an unreasonable burden.
• The Applicant submitted that the "unreasonable burden" test was misapplied insofar as it was used to deny entitlement based on the right to reside before any payments were made.
• He further argued that EU law, as explained in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v. Brey (C-140/12), requires an individual assessment and that national legislation imposing a right to reside test conflicting with this should be disapplied.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents maintained that the entitlement to the SPNC is contingent upon the Applicant having a right to reside in the State, which includes having sufficient resources so as not to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system.
• They argued that the SPNC is a special non-contributory benefit and its payment is not temporary but intended to endure indefinitely, subject to ongoing conditions.
• The Respondents relied on the CJEU decisions, particularly Dano v. Jobcentre Leipzig (C-333/13), to support the position that national legislation requiring a right to reside as a prerequisite for entitlement to such benefits is compatible with EU law.
• They contended that the "unreasonable burden" test is properly applied at the time of the application, without the necessity of prior payments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the statutory framework governing entitlement to the SPNC, emphasizing that entitlement is conditional on habitual residence and the right to reside in the State, which itself requires sufficient resources to avoid becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system, as set out in Directive 2004/38/EC and related regulations.

The Court reviewed the first Respondent's decision, which applied the "unreasonable burden" test by considering factors such as the nature and duration of the SPNC, the Applicant's personal circumstances, and the connection to the State through family members. It found no dispute about the Applicant's insufficient resources and accepted that the SPNC is a special non-contributory benefit likely to be payable for the foreseeable future, thus not temporary.

The Court considered the Applicant's argument that the test must be applied only after some payments are made, but found this inconsistent with the reasoning in Brey and Munteanu. It noted that the CJEU requires an individual assessment but does not mandate prior payments before such an assessment. The assessment is prospective, considering the likely duration and impact of the benefit if granted.

The Court rejected the Applicant's submission that the SPNC could be awarded for a limited period before applying the "unreasonable burden" test, holding that the statutory language requires entitlement to be assessed at the date of application.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Applicant does not have sufficient resources to avoid becoming an unreasonable burden and therefore has no right to reside in the State, which precludes entitlement to the SPNC.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Applicant's judicial review application.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant is not entitled to the State pension (non-contributory) because he lacks the right to reside in the State, which is a statutory prerequisite linked to having sufficient resources to avoid being an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system. The judgment affirms the compatibility of Irish legislation with EU law regarding the right to reside and entitlement to social assistance benefits. No new precedent was set beyond clarifying the application of existing EU and national law principles in this context.