The Supreme Court has held that the Minister for Justice is entitled to take into account, when considering whether to revoke a deportation order, the length of time the parties to a marriage have lived together as a family unit.
The duration of cohabitation between a Romanian man and his Irish wife was "a legitimate consideration" for the Minister, the five-judge court held.
Aurel Cirpaci had married Irish woman Tracy McCormack in Romania three months after he was deported from this State. The couple were in a relationship from late 1999.
The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously dismissed the Cirpacis' appeal against a High Court decision refusing to quash the Minister's decision not to revoke the deportation order.
Giving the judgment, Mr Justice Niall Fennelly said Mr Cirpaci and his wife, Tracy, had argued the order should be revoked so as to allow them live in the State with the children of Mr Cirpaci (from earlier relationships).
He said Mr Cirpaci came here in August 1999. In his application for asylum he said he was married to a Romanian woman who remained in Romania with their four children. His application was refused in May 2001. In his appeal that same month he said his Romanian wife had divorced him. That wife had come to Ireland in April 2003 and named Mr Cirpaci as her husband.
Mr Cirpaci's appeal was refused in April 2002 but he failed to attend for deportation. He was later arrested at the home of Ms McCormack and was deported to Romania in September 2002.
On January 30th, 2003, he married Ms McCormack in Romania and the couple went to the Irish Embassy in Bucharest the following day, where they sought a visa permitting Mr Cirpaci travel to Ireland as the spouse of an Irish national.
The visa was refused and legal proceedings were initiated by the couple on grounds that Mr Cirpaci's circumstances had changed through his marriage to an Irish national. The High Court held against the couple and that decision was supported by the Supreme Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Fennelly noted that the letter from the Department of Justice in March 2003 refusing revocation of the deportation order stated that the couple had not resided together as a family unit for "an appreciable period of time". It also questioned whether the marriage was entered into solely to facilitate re-entry into the State. However, the court was satisfied the refusal to revoke deportation was only based on the couple not having lived as a family unit for "an appreciable period".
He was satisfied the Minister was entitled to consider the duration of cohabitation. He also noted Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had been advanced by the couple as supporting their case, did not impose on a state any general obligation to respect the right of residence of a married couple.