Ozkaya v Minister For Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is a Turkish national who entered the State on 8 December 2019 on a student immigration permission (Stamp 2). The Appellant began employment with Employer A on 14 October 2021. In July 2022 the Appellant applied for and was granted an immigration permission under the Turkish Association Agreement on 8 August 2022 (described in the decision as permitting continuation of employment with Employer A on Stamp 1 conditions for one year). Prior to the renewal application the Appellant had ceased work with Employer A and commenced work with a related entity which the administrative authority treated as the same employer for present purposes. The Appellant subsequently changed employer to Employer B on 14 November 2022.

The Appellant sought wider employment permissions (Stamp 4). An application in 2023 was deemed closed; a later application dated 7 January 2024 for Stamp 4 was refused by decision of 19 March 2024, which also refused renewal on Stamp 1 grounds. The refusal concluded that employment after 13 November 2022 was not "legal employment" for the purpose of accruing the requisite continuous service with a single employer. A renewed Irish Residence Permit (IRP card) was issued on 19 August 2023 but no contemporaneous immigration permission has been explained on the evidence. Judicial review proceedings challenging the 19 March 2024 decision were filed on 4 June 2024. The judgment of Judge Simons (delivered 30 April 2026) directs supplemental submissions and further affidavit evidence from the parties and fixes a timetable for those filings, with a mention to fix a resumed hearing date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the immigration permission issued on 8 August 2022 authorised the Appellant to change employer.
2. How the domestic implementing measures (the "stamp" system and IRP card practice) interact with Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council and the directly effective rights in Article 6(1) of that Decision.
3. Whether time spent with Employer A and Employer B is to be aggregated for the purpose of calculating progress towards rights under the second and third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.
4. Whether a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 TFEU should be made on the legal consequences of the employment history described.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The immigration permission most recently issued authorised the Appellant to change employer (i.e. to work for Employer B).

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant contends the permission was issued in error and, alternatively, that any permission is subject to conditions of an earlier permission which confined employment to Employer A.
• The administrative decision of 19 March 2024 asserted the Appellant did not provide evidence of three years' continuous legal employment with a single employer and therefore refused Stamp 4 and renewal on Stamp 1 grounds, stating employment after 13 November 2022 was not "legal employment" for the purposes of the Turkish Association Agreement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sevince, Case C-192/89, EU:C:1990:322	Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 has direct effect in Member States.	The court relied on this authority to confirm that Article 6(1) is directly effective and relevant to the Appellant's entitlements.
Kus, Case C-237/91, EU:C:1992:527	The right to employment under Decision No 1/80 implies a corollary right of residence; a Turkish national fulfilling the first or third indent of Article 6(1) may rely directly on those provisions to obtain renewal of work and residence permits.	The court cited Kus to explain that rights under Article 6(1) include residence and that Member States retain competence over entry and first employment only.
Payir, Akyuz and Ozturk, Case C-294/06, EU:C:2008:36	Turkish nationals initially admitted as students may nonetheless accrue employment rights under Article 6(1).	The court referenced Payir to note that student admission does not preclude accrual of employment rights under Decision No 1/80.
Dogan v. Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 692	Application of Payir in domestic law; rejection of suggestion that an applicant should be restricted to student-permission entitlements because they did not indicate reliance on Decision No 1/80 on entry.	The court relied on Dogan as domestic authority applying Payir and as persuasive precedent on the non-restrictive effect of initial student status.
Ozek v. Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration [2026] IEHC 253	Explanation, on affidavit in related proceedings, of the reason for the accelerated domestic timeline and implementation practice.	The court referenced Ozek for explanation of why domestic law grants the right to work for any employer after three (not four) years and for discussion of administrative processes.
Gülbahce, Case C-268/11, EU:C:2012:695	Limits on a Member State's discretion to revoke an immigration permission retroactively for Turkish nationals covered by Decision No 1/80.	The court cited Gülbahce to note that the State's discretion to revoke with retroactive effect is limited.
Akkaya	This judgment was mentioned in the opinion as another judgment delivered on the same day; the opinion refers to it regarding wording of permissions acknowledging rights accrued prior to decision.	The court noted Akkaya exists but stated the specific question addressed there is not relevant to resolution of the present proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified the central dispute as the legal effect of the most recent immigration permission and whether it authorised a change of employer. The resolution required examination of Decision No 1/80 (Article 6(1)) and its direct effect, and of how Irish implementing measures (the numbered "stamp" permissions and IRP card registration) operate together.

The court reviewed the legislative and CJEU authorities establishing that Article 6(1) is directly effective and that employment rights carry a corollary right of residence. It explained that Member States may regulate entry and first employment but, once a Turkish national is integrated into the labour force, Decision No 1/80 governs progressive entitlements.

The court described Ireland's administrative implementation: after successful application an immigration permission is issued (a time-limited document with stamp conditions) and registration under section 9 produces an IRP card; both documents must be read together to ascertain rights. The court identified a practical problem on the facts: the State issued a renewed IRP card in August 2023 without explaining or evidencing a corresponding renewed immigration permission. The court found no satisfactory explanation why any purported renewal should be confined to Employer A when the decision-maker had been on notice of employment with Employer B.

Because these factual and legal issues (the mechanism of any August 2023 immigration permission; whether the August 2023 documentation authorised the change of employer; and the cumulative calculation of service across employers under Article 6(1)) were not fully addressed in affidavit evidence or submissions, the court concluded further targeted submissions and affidavit material were necessary. The court therefore directed supplemental submissions (Minister first) and allowed the parties liberty to file further affidavits. The court also required the parties to address, de bene esse, whether a preliminary reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU should be made on a specified question concerning the legal consequences of the Appellant's employment history.

Holding and Implications

Order directing supplemental submissions and further affidavit evidence

Holding: The court ordered that the Defendant file supplemental submissions and any further affidavit evidence within five working weeks from 30 April 2026 (period expiring 15 June 2026). The Appellant has five working weeks thereafter (period expiring 20 July 2026) to file responding supplemental submissions and affidavits. The proceedings will be listed for mention on 21 July 2026 to fix a date for the resumed hearing. The Defendant is to go first in filing submissions. The parties must also address, de bene esse, the question of a possible reference to the CJEU on the specified question concerning aggregation of employment periods under Article 6(1).

Implications: The orders preserve the parties' opportunity to address the unresolved factual and legal issues identified by the court and to propose whether a CJEU reference is required. The decision does not resolve the merits of whether the Appellant was authorised to change employer or whether service with multiple employers is to be aggregated; it directs further proceedings and does not purport to create new precedent beyond the guidance given on procedural and evidential shortcomings.

Appearances (anonymised)

Attorney Power and Attorney Harnett for the Appellant instructed by Attorney Young, Company A.

Attorney Dunne and Attorney Kitson for the Defendant instructed by The State Solicitor.