The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pharmacist’s appeal over the rejection of his challenge to Ireland’s labour market access rules which barred him from seeking employment in the public service when he was an asylum seeker.
The man, who worked as a pharmacist in his home country in the Middle East since 2005 specialising in public health sector pharmacy, arrived in Ireland seeking international protection in August 2023 and was granted refugee status the following October.
He had obtained a labour market access permission that permitted him to work while his international protection application was being processed but he says when he sought employment in the public health pharmacy section, employers were prohibited from giving him work.
He was allowed to work in a private pharmacy as a technician but claimed he was being paid less than a person with his experience and qualifications should be paid. He got €22 per hour compared with €40 to €50 per hour if he was working at the appropriate level, he said.
‘It is so expensive in Dublin we decided to rent’: Swedish embassy returns to capital
Tenants who were ‘full of hatred’ followed and video-recorded neighbours, tribunal hears
‘I was 34 and all my friends were having kids... I was like: what am I waiting for?’
Consumers could face €1,000 increase in bills across energy, broadband and other areas from this week
Although he was entitled to apply for jobs in any sector once he got his refugee status, he brought High Court proceedings challenging the refusal to allow him to do so while he was an asylum applicant.
He sought declarations including that under a 2013 EU directive (directive 2013/33EU) he was entitled to effective access to the labour market. He claimed the prohibition on public sector employers from taking him on amounted to a disproportionate limitation which was without legitimate justification and was unlawful.
The respondents in the case, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Enterprise Trade and Employment, and the State, disputed his claims.
Last November, the High Court rejected his claims.
He then sought a direct appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds including that his case raised a matter of public importance. He contended it was in the interests of justice that the rights of eligible international protection applicants to labour market access are lawfully determined.
He claimed the High Court erred on a number of matters including in its interpretation of effective access to the labour market.
The court also erred in accepting, in the absence of evidence, that the reason for the prohibition on access to all public sector employment was that it created a “pull factor” for potential international protection applicants, it was claimed.
The respondents opposed the application for an appeal. They argued, among other things, that the matters he raised in seeking an appeal did not constitute exceptional grounds to permit a direct appeal to the Supreme Court and could have been dealt with by the Court of Appeal.
In a written determination, the Supreme Court granted him leave to appeal.
It said his asserted grounds of appeal met the constitutional threshold of exceptional circumstances warranting an appeal directly from the High Court.
It said the appeal raised issues of law which would be likely to reach the Supreme Court in any event (even if there was first an appeal to the Court of Appeal).
It was satisfied a question of general public importance arises as to whether the blanket prohibition on public sector work contained in the reception regulations meant labour market access for international protection applicants is not effective as required by the 2013 directive.
