Source: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/CD233A79F54C442180257F7800422338
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:04:51+00:00

Document:
1.	Does an asylum seeker who seeks international protection in this State have an entitlement to work here pending the determination of that application, especially where, as here, that application has been beset by considerable delays? This is the essential question which arises on this appeal. In his judgment in the High Court ( IEHC 246), McDermott J. rejected these claims and the applicant, Mr. V., has now appealed to this Court.
2.	Mr. V. is a Burmese national who arrived in the State on 16th July 2008 and who applied for asylum on the following day. Perhaps the most striking feature regarding his application for asylum is that in over some seven years and six months there has been no final determination on this application. As McDermott J. noted in his judgment it is scarcely surprising that the applicant’s indefinite sojourn in direct provision (i.e., where his basic food and accommodation is provided by the State) for such a remarkable period of time with no opportunities for gainful occupation has led him to complain of personal distress and demoralisation. This is the background against which the present proceedings have been brought.
3.	On 25th November 2008, Mr. V. attended for interview with the Office of the Refugee Application Commissioner and he subsequently received a negative recommendation in respect of his application for asylum on 22nd December 2008. His appeal hearing before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal took place on 26th May 2009, following which a negative recommendation was made in July 2009.
4.	There then followed judicial review proceedings to challenge that decision and the applicant ultimately succeeded in having it quashed by decision of the High Court on 16th July 2013. Following this determination the applicant was obliged to re-enter the process and re-attend the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. This culminated in a further adverse decision from the Tribunal in November 2013 which was again successfully challenged in judicial review proceedings, as that decision was quashed by the High Court on consent in February 2014. The matter was once again remitted following by the High Court to the Tribunal.
5.	At the hearing of the appeal in this Court in February 2016, the Court was informed that the latest Tribunal hearing took place in July 2015, but, as yet, at least the Tribunal had yet to reach a decision.
6.	Perhaps the most charitable observation that might be made regarding delays of this magnitude is that they reflect little credit on the public administration and, for that matter, the legal system, of this State. For even if the Tribunal were to rule adversely to Mr. V.’s claim, he states that his intention is then to apply to the Minister for Justice for subsidiary protection, a process which, he is advised, could also take several years. If this were to transpire, the entire process of an application for international protection might take the best part of ten years.
8.	By letter dated 8th May 2013, Mr. V. was offered employment as a chef in St Patrick’s Accommodation Centre. By letter dated 30th May 2013, his solicitor applied to the respondent for temporary permission to reside and work in the State either pursuant to s. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) or s. 9(11) of Refugee Act 1996 (as amended)(“the 1996 Act”) or, in the alternative, by the exercise of executive discretion. By letter dated 13th June 2013, his application was refused. On 15th July 2013, his solicitor wrote again repeating the submission that the respondent had the power to grant him permission to reside and work in the State whilst his protection application was being determined. By letter dated 15th July 2013, the Department responded and again refused his application.
"(1)	Subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, an applicant, being a person referred to in section 8 (1)(a), shall be given leave to enter the State by the immigration officer concerned.
(c)	the date on which notice is sent that the Minister has refused to give him or her a declaration.
(3)	The Minister shall give or cause to be given to a person referred to in subsection (2) a temporary residence certificate (in this section referred to as ‘a certificate’) stating the name and containing a photograph of the person concerned, specifying the date on which the person's application for a declaration was referred to the Commissioner and stating that, subject to the provisions of this Act, and, without prejudice to any other permission or leave granted to the person concerned to remain in the State, the person referred to in the certificate shall not be removed from the State before the final determination of his or her application.
"(7)	A person who contravenes subsection (4) … shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine…or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both.
"(1)	No non-national may be in the State other than in accordance with the terms of any permission given to him or her before the passing of this Act, or a permission given under this Act after such passing, by or on behalf of the Minister.
(2)	A non-national who is in the State in contravention of subsection (1) is for all purposes unlawfully present in the State.
13.	As McDermott J. noted in his judgment, such a provision is in accordance with the provision of Chapter 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1951, in respect of “gainful employment”. Article 17 of the Convention provides that each contracting state shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the right to engage in wage earning employment and also the rights under Articles 18 and 19 to engage in “self employment” and the “liberal professions”. The Convention does not contain any provision regarding access to the labour market during the asylum process, nor did this State assume any obligation in that regard under the Convention.
14.	There are accordingly four questions which the Court is required to consider. First, does the Minister enjoy a discretion under s. 9 of the 1996 Act to grant a work permit to a person in the position of the applicant? Second, if the Minister has no discretion under the s. 9, does she enjoy an inherent discretion to grant such a permit? Third, if the answer to both of the first two questions is in the negative and there is no such discretion, then the applicant maintains that s. 9 of the 1996 Act is contrary to Article 15 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and should accordingly be disapplied by this Court. Fourth, if s. 9 is not contrary to the Charter, then the applicant maintains that the section is unconstitutional.
15.	I propose now to consider each of these questions in turn. Before doing so it is necessary to observe that the references to “non-national” or “third country national” in this judgment are not intended to refer to EU/EEA citizens for whom special rules in relation to employment and establishment are provided for under EU law. Nor does the term include Swiss nationals for whom special arrangements in relation to free movement and establishment have been made by law: see ss. 2 and 3 of the European Communities and Swiss Confederation Act 2001.
Part II: Is there a discretion under Section 9?
16.	The applicant claims that s. 9 of the 1996 Act does not preclude the respondent from granting permission to a refugee applicant to take up employment, but imposes an obligation on a refugee not to seek or enter employment unless he obtains permission to take up such employment which may be granted outside the terms of the Act. In the alternative it was contended that s. 9 (11) expressly provides that the employment restriction may be waived by the granting of an alternative permission to a refugee applicant to remain in the State. The applicant further contended that the respondent was vested with an inherent power by virtue of Article 28.2 of the Constitution, such as that granted to foreign nationals to reside and work in the State under the IBC/05 Scheme, as illustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bode v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform  3 I.R. 663.
17.	Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Lynn S.C., further submits that if the respondent did not have a discretion to grant an alternative permission to a refugee applicant, s. 9 (11) would be superfluous. In addition, it is claimed that s. 9(3) contemplates that a refugee may be permitted to reside in the State while awaiting the determination of his or her application, on a more favourable basis than that provided for under the provisions of the statute. Therefore, it is said that there is a discretion vested in the Minister which can be exercised without offending the provisions of the 1996 Act and furthermore that the respondent is not precluded from granting the applicant permission to work under s. 4 of the 2004 Act or in the exercise of the inherent executive discretion arising by virtue of Article 28.2. As a result, it is submitted that the refusal to consider the applicant’s application is wrong in law.
18.	The respondent submits that s. 9(11) of the 1996 Act has two purposes. It preserves the pre-existing entitlements of a person who may become a refugee sur place while otherwise lawfully present in Ireland and it enables an asylum seeker to benefit from legal entitlements which might otherwise accrue to him or her while present in Ireland as an asylum seeker; for instance, if a person has entered the State as an asylum seeker but subsequently acquires an entitlement to reside in the State following the birth of a child (for example, under the IBC/05 Citizen Child Scheme or by virtue of the decision of the Court of Justice in C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano EU:C:2011:124  E.C.R. I-1177) or following a marriage to an Irish citizen.
19.	Counsel for the State, Ms. Butler S.C., submitted that s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act applies only to an applicant who “but for the provisions of this Act would not be entitled to enter or remain in the State”. Both applicants are persons who “but for” the permission to which they were entitled under s. 9 have no right or entitlement to be in the State. Therefore it is submitted that the provisions of s. 9(4) (b) apply in mandatory terms to the applicant. Furthermore, it should be noted that under s. 9(7) a person who contravenes s. 9(4) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both. The respondent also relies on the fact that s. 9 is addressed and confined to those who are entitled as a matter of legal right to be granted leave to enter and remain in the State as applicants for protection defined under s. 8(1)(a) of the Act. The prohibition on seeking or entering employment during the course of that application is confined to those who “but for” their entitlement to be granted leave to enter and remain in the State as asylum seekers would not be entitled to enter or remain in the State.
20.	The right of an asylum seeker to enter and to remain in the State and the conditions under which they may do so are defined by the provisions of the 1996 Act. This is illustrated by the judgment of Murray J. for the Supreme Court in G.A.G. v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform  3 I.R. 442. In that case, two of the applicants were failed asylum seekers in respect of whom deportation orders had been made and the third was an asylum seeker the subject of a transfer order to Germany for examination of his application for asylum in accordance with the Dublin Convention. They sought permission to remain in the State on the basis of an intention to invoke a right of establishment under the Association Agreements then in force between the Czech Republic and the European Union. This was refused by the Minister on the basis that the applicants could apply for a right of establishment from outside the State.
“Entry to the State by the applicants for the purposes of making an application for asylum was the consequence of the exercise by the State of its inherent power to determine for what purposes and subject to which limitations non-nationals may be allowed to physically enter the State. Persons seeking asylum status are permitted pursuant to s. 9 of the Act of 1996 to enter the State solely (emphasis supplied) for the purpose of having their application for asylum examined by a fairly elaborate independent procedure, so that those genuinely entitled to asylum may be granted permission to enter and stay in the State on those grounds.
Persons allowed to enter the State for such a limited purpose are subject to a variety of restrictions. In an exceptional departure from general policy the applicant in the first case was at one point permitted to become employed and this permission ceased on the 9th November, 2002. After that date it was illegal for him to work in the State either as an employee or as a self-employed person. As and from the coming into force of the Refugee Act 1996 in October, 2000, the status of each of the applicants has been governed by the provisions of the Act of 1996. That is what is material for the purposes of these proceedings. Section 9(4) of the Act of 1996 provides that applicants for asylum shall not leave or attempt to leave the State without the consent of the first respondent or seek or enter employment or become self-employed in any form(emphasis supplied) before the final determination of their application for a declaration as to refugee status. Subsection 5 of the Act of 1996 permits an immigration officer to require such persons to reside or remain in a particular district or places in the State or to report at specified intervals to an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána. Persons who contravene subs. (4) or subs. (5) of s. 9 of the Act of 1996 shall be guilty of an offence which may lead to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month. Such persons are granted only a ‘temporary residence certificate’ pursuant to s. 9(3) which is governed by the foregoing restrictions. That temporary residence certificate ceases to be in force and must be surrendered as required by the Refugee Act 1996 Regulations, once notification is given to an applicant for asylum that the application has been refused or is being transferred to another country. Accordingly, at the time when they purported to make applications for establishment to the first respondent, none of the applicants possessed a temporary residence certificate.
It seems to me quite clear that the foregoing restrictions highlight and confirm that persons who are allowed to enter the State for the purpose of making an application for asylum fall into a particular category and never enjoy the status of residents as such who have been granted permission to enter and reside in the State as immigrants. Even though such immigrants may be subject to certain limitations as to time and requirements as to renewal of work permits, they nonetheless enjoy legitimate residence status. In fact the very purpose of an application for refugee status is to seek permission to be allowed to enter and reside in the State as an immigrant and benefit from such a status.
22.	For my part, I consider that the Oireachtas plainly intended the application of clear restrictions on asylum seekers such as the applicant who was granted permission to enter and remain in the State for the purpose of seeking international protection. This precludes them from seeking or entering employment, as noted by Murray J., “in any form” pending the determination of their applications and failure to comply with these conditions renders them liable to prosecution.
23.	Specifically, it is clear that the prohibition contained in s. 9(4)(b) applies to asylum seekers in the position of the applicant by virtue of the provisions of s. 9(11). Persons seeking asylum only have an entitlement to enter or to remain in the State by virtue of s. 9(1) of the 1996 Act. In these circumstances the applicant is someone who “but for the provisions of [the 1996 Act] would not be entitled to enter or remain in the State” within the meaning of s. 9(11) since his entitlement to be in the State is entirely contingent on a permission granted under the 1996 Act. It follows, therefore, that the absolute exclusion from the labour market provided for in s. 9(4)(b) applies to such persons by virtue of s. 9(11) and the Minister enjoys no statutory discretion in the matter.
Does the Minister enjoy an inherent discretion to grant the applicant a work permit?
26.	All of this means that where, as here, the Oireachtas has legislated on a particular topic in a manner which (either expressly or impliedly) precludes the exercise of any ministerial discretion in relation to that issue, the executive power cannot be exercised in a manner which would override that legislative prohibition. If it were otherwise, this would mean that the Minister could effectively suspend or dis-apply the law in a manner which was contrary to Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution.
27.	In these particular circumstances, it follows in turn that the Minister enjoys no discretion to grant the applicant a permission to enter the labour market by virtue of the exercise of executive power of the State, since to do otherwise would be in effect to set aside the statutory prohibition contained in s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act as applied by s. 9(11) of the same Act.
Part III: Is section 9 in breach of European Union law?
28.	The applicant contends that if s. 9 of the 1996 Act (as amended) prohibits the Minister from considering or granting an asylum seeker permission to work in the State, it is incompatible with European Union law in general and Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular.
1.	Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
2.	Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.
1.	The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.
"1.	Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
2.	Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.
3.	Insofar as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.
4.	Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.
5.	The provisions of this Charter which contain principles may be implemented by legislative and executive acts taken by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and by acts of Member States when they are implementing Union law, in the exercise of their respective powers. They shall be judicially cognisable only in the interpretation of such acts and in the ruling on their legality.
6.	Full account shall be taken of national laws and practices as specified in this Charter.
33.	It will be seen that the application of the Charter is contingent on the applicant demonstrating that the State is “implementing” Union law within the meaning of Article 51.1 of the Charter. I will return presently to this question.
34.	The applicant also points to what he claims is the general right to work is derived from Article 11 of Council Directive 2003/9/EC (“the Reception Directive”) and its successor the provisions of Council Directive 2013/33/EU (“the 2013 Reception Directive”).
"1.	Member States shall determine a period of time starting from the date on which an application for asylum was lodged, during which an applicant shall not have access to the labour market.
2.	If a decision at first instance has not been taken within one year of the presentation of an application for asylum and this delay cannot be attributed to the applicant, Member States shall decide the conditions for granting access to the labour market for the applicant.
3.	Access to the labour market shall not be withdrawn during appeals procedures, where an appeal against a negative decision in a regular procedure has suspensive effect, until such time as a negative decision on the appeal is notified.
36.	Ireland elected not to participate in the terms of the 2003 Directive in accordance with Article 1 of the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community.
37.	Article 15(1) of the 2013 Reception Directive reformulated the entitlements of asylum seekers in that participating member states were now obliged to ensure that applicants for asylum have access to the labour market no later than nine months from the date when the application for international protection was lodged if a first instance decision by a competent authority had not been taken, and the delay could not be attributed to the applicant. Applicants must be granted “effective access” to the labour market, but the member states retain the right to determine the conditions upon which access would be permitted.
38.	Ireland also elected to opt-out of the 2013 Reception Directive in accordance with Article 1 of the Protocol: see recital 33 of the Directive.
39.	The key provision of the Charter is, of course, Article 51(1) which provides that it applies only to Member States when they are “implementing” Union law. Classically, of course, a Member State is “implementing” Article 51(1) when it exercises a discretionary power pursuant to a Directive or a Regulation. But beyond these obvious contexts, this is a phrase which is one which, perhaps, avoids precise definition.
40.	The recent decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson EU:C: 2013:280 is illustrative of some of these difficulties. Here the question was whether the ne bis in idem provisions of Article 50 of the Charter applied to a tax penalty imposed for VAT purposes. The taxpayer in this case had previously paid administrative tax penalties and the question was whether Article 50 of the Charter precluded the application of further penalties in later proceedings.
43.	The Court then concluded that tax penalties and criminal proceedings for tax evasion, constituted the implementation of Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 (previously Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive) and of Article 325 TFEU. It followed, therefore, that Sweden was “implementing” European Union law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
44.	In my view, in the context of the present case, it cannot be said that the State was “implementing” EU law. Ireland had already sometime previously elected to opt-out of the 2013 Reception Directive as it was fully entitled to do. By so electing, it must be accepted that the topics which were the subject matter of the Directive itself remained entirely within the sovereign realm of this State and, accordingly, fell outside the scope of EU law. As the right of asylum seekers to participate in the labour market pending the determination of their claim is one of these very topics which were addressed by the 2013 Reception Directive, legislation enacted by the Oireachtas regulating the rights of asylum seekers in relation to employment and the labour market equally falls outside the scope of EU law. One may thus say that by electing to opt-out of the Directive (and, in that sense, not to implement the Directive), the State could hardly be said to be implementing Union law.
45.	In any event, I do not think that there is anything in Article 15 in the Charter which assists the applicant, the apparently broad language of Article 15(1) notwithstanding. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Lynn S.C., urged that the language of Article 15(1) of the Charter should be regarded as having conferred the right to work on all (“Everyone has the right to engage in work….”) who happened to be within the territory of the Union. This guarantee must, however, be seen in the context of the rest of Article 15. Article 15(2) then deals with the right of citizens of the Union to seek employment and to work in any Member State.
47.	It is quite clear that the general words of Article 15(1) are substantially qualified by this specific and particular provision which is addressed to the position of third country nationals such as the applicant. Such third country nationals must accordingly be authorised to work. The natural inference from this specific provision of Article 15(3) is that third country nationals have no other rights other than those specified in this provision.
48.	In effect, therefore, all that Article 15(3) provides is that third country nationals who are authorised to work – impliedly by one of the Member States – to work under working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union. But since, of course, Mr. V. is not in fact authorised to work in the territories of the Member States – whether in this State or in another Member State – it follows that Article 15(3) cannot assist him.
“In fact, Article 15(1)…quite clearly does not confer the general right to work. Despite its terms…there is clearly no absolute right to work: the provision can refer to no more than some form of access to the labour market. However, there are many UK nationals and other EU citizens who, without permission, have a right to work because of their nationality and citizenship and who wish to work but are unemployed because of a lack of jobs for which they are equipped and qualified. They have a right of access to the labour market, but that right for many is empty in the sense that they have at best a very limited chance of obtaining employment.
But leaving that general point to one side, it is clear from Article 15(2) and (3) that Article 15(1) does not confer a right to work on everyone, in the sense of all individuals who happen to be within the territories of the EU at a particular time. Article 15(1) cannot be considered in a vacuum. Article 15(2) provides that every citizen of the EU has the right to seek employment and to work in any member state, a right which presumes that there is no wider right to work or access to the labour market, available to EU and non-EU citizens. Article 15(3) also presumes that, to work, those who are not EU citizens require authorisation outside the Charter itself. Despite the use of the word “everyone” in Article 15(1), far from conferring a general right to work on all who happen to be in EU territories at any time, in terms of the right to engage the labour market, Article 15 draws a fundamental distinction between citizens of the EU on the one hand and those who are not such citizens on the other; and its objective, patently, is to recognise that EU citizens have the freedom or right to seek employment and to work, but not to recognise that same freedom or right in non EU citizens. It is perhaps worthy of note that Mr. Wilson (for the applicant) did not contend that Article 15 gave a failed asylum seeker any right to work.
51.	I cannot but agree with the entirety of this analysis.
(i)	Given that Ireland has exercised its right to opt-out of the 2013 Reception Directive, it follows that the matters which were the subject-matter of the Directive itself remained entirely within the sovereign control of this State and, accordingly, fell outside the scope of EU law so far as this State is concerned. As the entitlement of asylum seekers to enter the labour market was addressed in that Directive, it follows equally that the State was not “implementing” EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1).
(ii)	In any event, the provisions of the Charter cannot assist the applicant. Article 15(3) makes it clear that the rights of third country nationals to enter the labour market are contingent on such nationals being “authorised” for this purpose. As the applicant is not, of course, authorised to enter that market, it follows that Article 15 is not of any assistance to the applicant.
53.	I now turn to a consideration of the applicant’s challenge to the constitutionality of s. 9(4) of the 1996 Act. This general issue itself raises a number of fundamental questions. First, is there a constitutional right to earn a livelihood and, if so, what is the nature of that right? Second, if there is such a right, can a non-citizen such as the applicant invoke this right? Third, if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, are legislative restrictions of this kind contained in s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act as applied to this applicant constitutionally valid. I propose to consider these issues in turn.
56.	To that extent, therefore, one might question the extent to which it is legitimate to have regard to Article 45 in assessing whether the right to earn a livelihood is constitutionally protected as an unenumerated personal right for the purposes of Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution, whatever Kenny J. may have said to the contrary on the topic in Murtagh Properties Ltd. v. Cleary  I.R.330. One might also question the consistency of a constitutional interpretation which assumes the existence of an implied constitutional right for the purposes of Article 40.3.1 (and, hence, a right which is justiciable and enforceable by the courts) when the very same right is (to all intents and purposes) expressly recognised by Article 45.2.i, but Article 45 declares that such a right is not justiciable or enforceable by the courts.
57.	At all events, the matter is far from res integra, as it is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. Stewart  I.R. 97, 117 that, in the words of Walsh J., “among the unspecified personal rights guaranteed by [Article 40.3.1] of the Constitution is the right to work.” This was further confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996  2 I.R. 321, 366 where Hamilton C.J. said that “the right to carry on a business earn a livelihood” was protected by Article 40.3.1, i.e., that it is one of the unenumerated personal rights guaranteed by that provision. There is also impressive authority for the proposition that this right may also be regarded as an aspect of the personal property rights as guaranteed by Article 40.3.2: see Cafolla v. O’Malley  I.R. 486, 493, per Costello J.
59.	It is clear, therefore, in the light of these authorities, that the right to earn a livelihood is a personal right which is protected by Article 40.3.1 and may also be regarded as an aspect of the protection of the property rights for the purposes of Article 40.3.2. Since, however, the applicant does not have a subsisting contract of employment, in the light of the comments of Finlay C.J. in Cox, it seems more likely that the constitutional right at issue in the present case, is strictly, the applicant’s unenumerated constitutional right to earn a livelihood under Article 40.3.1 rather than the protection of property rights as such under Article 40.3.2. Given, however, that both rights are derive squarely from the provenance of Article 40 (and thus in principle open to non-nationals in the light of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill analysis which is discussed in greater detail later in this judgment), nothing may greatly turn on this.
May a non-citizen invoke the right to earn a livelihood?
60.	So far as the constitutional question is concerned, the fundamental issue is whether a non-citizen can ever invoke the constitutional right to earn a livelihood. The present proceedings accordingly bring into sharp relief a question which has surfaced from time to time, namely, the extent (if at all) to which non-citizens can invoke the Constitution and the rights secured thereby.
61.	This issue first surfaced in the High Court in The State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtála  I.R. 567. In that case the child of an unmarried father (who was a British citizen) had been given up for adoption without that father’s knowledge. When the father learned of this event he commenced judicial review proceedings in which he sought, inter alia, to challenge the constitutionality of the Adoption Act 1952 on the ground that it violated the provisions of Article 40.1, Article 40.3 and Article 41 of the Constitution. His claim ultimately failed for reasons which need not here detain us.
62.	The question, however, as to whether or not a non-national applicant could invoke the Constitution for this purpose was considered in some detail. One of the judges of the Divisional High Court, Henchy J., conducted a close textual analysis of the relevant provisions of the Constitution which referred in some cases to “citizen” and in other cases to “person”. Henchy J. took two examples to illustrate his point.
“Article 9.2 says: “Fidelity to the Nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens”. In so far as personal rights are concerned, the State is concerned only with its citizens, who owe it this loyalty. The Preamble to the Constitution, by the words, “We, the people of Éire .. do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution”, shows that this is basically a Constitution of the Irish people for the Irish People.
66.	In the wake of Nicolaou the question of the right of a non-citizen to invoke the Constitution seems to have laid largely dormant subject to a number of specific examples and specific areas which I will consider presently.
67.	The first case in which an Act of the Oireachtas was declared unconstitutional at the suit of a non citizen appears to have been Kostan v. Ireland  I.L.R.M. 12. In Kostan a Bulgarian citizen successfully challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 on the ground that provided for summary trial of a fishing offence which was in truth not a minor offence for the purposes of Article 38.2. The next example came in 1986 with the decision of the Supreme Court in The State (Gilliland) v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison  I.R. 201, a case where regulations giving effect to the Ireland-U.S. Extradition Treaty were declared unconstitutional at the suit of a U.S. national. In that case the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution had not been complied with as the Dáil had not approved the terms of an international treaty creating a charge on public funds. It might be said, of course, that both Kostan and Gilliland were both cases were non citizens successfully invoked provisions of the Constitution, but not in a context involving personal rights.
69.	This, however, was a minority view and the majority of the Court (Hamilton C.J., Keane and Denham JJ.) saw no obstacle to the provision of Article 15.2.1 being invoked by a non-citizen.
70.	The last decade has witnessed at least four other cases where statutory provisions have been found to be unconstitutional at the suit of non-citizens. Thus, for example, in ZS and Ireland  IESC 49,  3 I.R. 626 a Pakistani national facing trial on serious criminal charges obtained a declaration that s. 2(1) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 contravened Article 38.1 of the Constitution. In Dokie v. Director of Public Prosecutions  IEHC 110,  1 I.R. 805 a Nigerian national successfully challenged the constitutionality of s. 12 of the Immigration Act 2004 on the basis that it contravened Article 38.1 and 40.4 of the Constitution. In Damache v. Director of Public Prosecutions  IESC 11,  2 I.R. 260, an Algerian national - whose home had been searched - successfully challenged the constitutionality of s. 29(1) Offences against the State Act 1939 (which permitted a Garda officer to issue a search warrant) on the ground that it contravened Article 40.5 of the Constitution. Finally, in Bederev and Ireland  IECA 38,  1 I.L.R.M. 301 this Court found a part of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 unconstitutional on the grounds that it contravened Article 15.2 of the Constitution in a case in which the applicant happened to be a Lithuanian national.
71.	In none of these cases was the locus standi of the successful challenger qua non-national ever put at issue. There are, however, a number of post-Nicolaou cases where the issue has been examined in varying degrees of detail.
74.	For completeness it should be noted that the 9th Amendment of the Constitution Act 1984 subsequently amended Article 16 so as to permit the Oireachtas to extend the franchise by law to non-citizens in certain circumstances.
76.	The decision in Ighama would appear to be the only decision prior to this case which addresses the question of whether a non-national can invoke the constitutional right to work. It is, perhaps, worth noting that the applicant in that case had been in the State since March 1999, so that at the date of the judgment he had been physically present here for some three years and eight months.
77.	One other feature of the judgment should also be mentioned at this juncture: Ó Caoimh J. stated that the judgment of Kenny J. in Murtagh Properties turned on the status of the defendant (who was invoking the right in question) qua Irish citizen. As it happens, in Murtagh Properties, Kenny J. drew on the language of Article 45.2.i in support of his conclusion that men and women had an equal right to earn a livelihood by virtue of Article 40.3.1. But, in my view, the comments of Ó Caoimh J. in Ighama regarding the reasoning in Murtagh Properties cannot be sustained.
78.	Save for a passing reference to the provisions of Article 9 and Article 16, there is no discussion at all in Murtagh Properties of whether the right to earn a livelihood is in some way linked to citizenship. It is true, of course, that all the main cases dealing with this question – such as, for example, Murtagh Properties, Murphy v. Stewart  I.R. 97, Attorney General v. Paperlink Ltd.  I.L.R.M. 373 - were all decided entirely within an Irish context, involving Irish citizens and Irish entities. This, however, once again simply serves to emphasise the fact that the issue of the right to earn a livelihood and citizenship has – with the apparent sole exception of Ighama – never arisen prior to this case.
It may be that in certain circumstances a right of access to the courts of non-nationals may be subject to conditions or limitations which would not apply to citizens. However, where the State, or State authorities, make decisions which are legally binding on, and addressed directly to, a particular individual, within the jurisdiction, whether a citizen or non-national, such decisions must be taken in accordance with the law and the Constitution. It follows that the individual legally bound by such a decision must have access to the courts to challenge its validity. Otherwise the obligation on the State to act lawfully and constitutionally would be ineffective. For the purpose of this reference, the Court is satisfied that non-nationals have a constitutional right of access to challenge the validity of any of the [immigration-related] decision taken in relation to him or her.
80.	The effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Illegal Immigrants would accordingly appear to be that non-citizens may invoke these constitutional guarantees of access to the courts and fair procedures in much the same way as citizens, save only that the Oireachtas might, in principle, be entitled to prescribe statutory conditions or other formalities in the case of non-citizens which not might be justifiable in the case of citizens.
82.	The issue of non-citizenship has, however, surfaced quite often in the context of family law, child abduction and immigration. Here the cases fall into two distinct types of categories. In the immigration cases the argument has often been that the deportation of the non-national parent or parents of Irish citizens effectively negates the constitutional right of the family under Article 41 to family unity and, specifically, the constitutional right of the children to the care and company of their parents. While the case-law on this topic has ebbed and flowed since the decision of the Supreme Court in O & L v. Minister for Justice  1 I.R. 1, it is clear from the decision in that case that while non-nationals may invoke the provisions of Article 41 and Article 42 of the Constitution, the State also enjoys a major margin of appreciation in regulating these rights in an immigration context. It could not be suggested, for example, that a non-national married to an Irish citizen could insist by virtue of the fact alone on the right to live and remain in the State.
83.	This basic principle has not been doubted in the subsequent case-law: the disputes and arguments have rather been in the context of how a balance is to be struck between the interests of the State in controlling illegal immigration on the one hand and protecting the substance of the Article 41 and Article 42 on the other when invoked by non-nationals.
84.	In the family abduction cases the not untypical situation has been that nationals of other countries (generally from the United Kingdom) have travelled here with their children in other to avoid the children being put into care (and, in some cases, even being adopted) in their home country. The argument advanced on their behalf is that the parents are nonetheless entitled to invoke Article 41 and Article 42 of the Constitution as grounds for the non-recognition of court orders in their country of origin under the Hague Convention. While the majority of the cases touching on this issue have been in the immigration area, the most detailed analysis of the question has come in the child abduction cases.
86.	Perhaps the most convenient place to start with a consideration of this question is the Supreme Court’s decision in KB itself. In that case the parents of children who had lived all their lives in the UK and who had no connections with this country arrived in Ireland in November 2008. The relevant local authority, Nottinghamshire County Council had become concerned about the treatment being afforded to the children and had commenced proceedings in the UK courts some days earlier.
89.	The Court ultimately found that the return of the children in the circumstances of the case was not contrary to Article 20 of the Hague Convention. But the judgment is notable for a sustained and detailed analysis by O’Donnell J. of the underlying issues regarding the capacity of non-citizens to invoke the Constitution. As it happens, Denham C.J., Fennelly and Macken JJ. agreed with O’Donnell J. Murray J. delivered a separate judgment in which agreed with the ultimate result, but he appears to have disagreed in part with the reasoning of O’Donnell J.
91.	O’Donnell J. then noted the significant of the decision of the High Court in Northampton County Council v ABF  I.L.R.M. 194. In that the plaintiff Council sought the return of an infant child born in England to an English couple who were married to each other but who were at the time of the case separated from each other. It was common case that if returned to England, the child would be adopted with the consent of the mother but against the wishes of the father.
“It seems to me however that non citizenship can have no effect on the interpretation of Article 41 or the entitlement to the protection afforded by it. What Article 41 does is to recognise the Family as the natural primary and fundamental group of society and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights antecedent and superior to all positive law, which rights the State cannot control. In the words of Walsh J. already quoted “these rights are part of what is generally called the natural law” and as such are antecedent and superior to all positive law.
The natural law is of universal application and applies to all human persons, be they citizens of this State or not, and in my opinion it would be inconceivable if the father of the infant child would not be entitled to rely on the recognition of the family contained in Article 41 for the purposes of enforcing his rights as the lawful father of the infant the subject matter of the proceedings herein or that he should lose such an entitlement merely because he removed the child to this jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing his rights.
94.	As O’Donnell J. noted, the treatment in the Northamptonshire case of many complex issues involving the inter-action of the conflict of laws and the Constitution, along with the right of non-citizens to invoke constitutional provisions is not entirely satisfactory, not least where those non-citizens had no prior connection with this State prior to their arrival in this country.
“although it may seem somewhat strange so to hold, the situation is that people who come into this jurisdiction, even for a short while, are entitled to gain the benefits that the Constitution confers on citizens as well as non-citizens”.
I am hesitant therefore to consider Saunders as authority for the applicant’s submission that the respondents and their children should not be entitled to recognition as a family whilst in Ireland for the purposes of Articles 41 and 42 and, whilst here, to rely on the constitutional rights accorded to families and their members thereunder. The ratio of Saunders appears to be that the parents in that case, by bringing their children unlawfully into this jurisdiction in breach of an English Court order, were not, by that act alone, entitled to rely upon constitutional rights under Articles 41 and 42, so as to preclude the Irish Courts, pursuant to the principle of comity of Courts and the then principle that the welfare of children should be determined by Courts of the jurisdiction in which they ordinarily reside and in which they were intended to be brought up, making an order for their custody to be given to the person entitled in accordance with the English Court order and, in substance, an order for their return to England.
“The broad principle the respondents sought to deduce from Saunders and apply in this case would be extremely far-reaching. Even within the narrow confines of the case itself, the proposition, if correct, raised a number of difficulties. Why if Saunders was justification for holding that parents were disentitled to rely on Articles 41 and 42, were the parents in Saunders nevertheless entitled and permitted to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 40.4? Would it follow that while the children in Saunders or in this case were in the care of the HSE or its statutory predecessor that by reason of the circumstances in which the children came to Ireland alone that the Health Board/HSE would be entitled to treat the children and the parents differently from an Irish family? Would it be possible to pass legislation allowing the adoption of children of any married non nationals, or even just those brought to Ireland “wrongfully” within the meaning of the Hague Convention? These are substantial issues which are not addressed in the decision itself or in the arguments sought to be constructed on foot of it.
I should say immediately that in my view the decision in Saunders is much too slender a basis to bear the argument the respondents seek to construct. Nor can reliance be placed upon Saunders as part of any wider proposition without a comprehensive analysis of case law extending well beyond the question of child abduction…..
100.	It is also of interest that although in his concurring judgment Murray J. agreed with the result, he appears to have taken a somewhat different view on the capacity of the English parents to invoke the relevant constitutional provisions where “the mere physical fact of an abduction to this country and no more by [the parents] would deprive the courts in their own country of the jurisdiction [under the Hague Convention] which this country is bound to recognise.” Given that the children’s life and their family life had been “inextricably and exclusively linked” with the UK, Murray J. considered that this was the appropriate governing law. In effect, therefore, Murray J. was prepared to apply the earlier reasoning of the Supreme Court in Saunders without any qualifications.
102.	First, the word “citizen” as it appears in the Constitution does not have a single, uniform meaning. In some contexts, the word must be understood as meaning “citizen” in the sense in which that term is defined in Article 9. In other contexts, the word may be regarded as equivalent to “person”.
103.	Second, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill reference makes clear that in the case of matters touching on elections, referenda, voting and the general political organisation of the State, the rights conferred by the Constitution are confined to those persons who are also citizens of Ireland, subject now only to the specific amendments to Article 16 effected by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution Act 1984.
104.	Third, the three major Supreme Court decisions which have addressed this point in the wake of Nicolaou – Electoral (Amendment) Bill, Illegal Immigrants and KB – have all concluded that non-citizens in principle enjoy the rights guaranteed by the fundamental rights provisions of Articles 40 to Article 44 of the Constitution in much the same general (but perhaps not identical) manner as citizens.
105.	Fourth, there may nonetheless be special cases where non-citizens will not be permitted to invoke the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution or, at least, where claims of this nature will be viewed with circumspection. These cases might include cases such as where non-citizens travel here for the purpose of circumventing the governing legal rules prevailing in their own State (as happened in cases such as Saunders and KB) or where their presence in the State is purely fleeting, accidental or temporary or conditional.
106.	Fifth, the State’s capacity to regulate or restrict the fundamental rights of non-citizens is generally greater where the non-citizen is present for reasons which are fleeting, accidental, temporary or conditional.
107.	This brings us to the issue which is at the heart of the constitutional question, namely, whether a non-citizen can invoke the constitutional right to earn a livelihood.
108.	It may be observed immediately that there are certain categories of employment and occupations that either are linked, or which might reasonably be linked, to the status of citizenship. This is well summed up by Article 51 TFEU which provides that even in the EU free movement context, the right of establishment does not apply to occupations which “are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority.” One could well envisages circumstances where this State (or, for that matter, any State) would reserve certain categories of public service or occupations to those who are its own citizens and who have accorded demonstrated loyalty to the State. Examples here in an Irish context might include members of An Garda Siochána, the Defence Forces, the judiciary and court service, diplomats, the Revenue Commissioners and, indeed, (subject perhaps to exceptions for the lowest grades) the wider public service. All of these positions and occupations could be said to be connected with the exercise of official authority in one shape or another.
109.	While the linkage between citizenship and the right to pursue certain vocations or employments is a tangible one in those cases involving the exercise of official authority, this is not true so far as the majority of occupations, trades or employment opportunities are concerned. In the generality of cases, therefore, the right to earn a livelihood is, as cases such as Murphy v. Stewart illustrate, a pure unenumerated personal right derived from Article 40.3.1. It is clear, therefore, from the comments of the Supreme Court in Electoral (Amendment) Bill that non-citizens can in principle and under certain circumstances invoke a constitutional right of this kind which is derived from Article 40.3.1.
110.	It follows, therefore, that non-citizens should be in principle be permitted to rely on the constitutional right to earn a livelihood. Here it must be recalled that employment is not just simply a means of earning a living. Employment gives dignity to what otherwise would be for many a soulless existence and for those of us those fortunate to have an occupation, trade or employment, this may be said to be one of the key defining features of our lives. The protection of the dignity of the individual (and not simply citizens) is, of course, one of the objectives which the Preamble to the Constitution seeks to secure.
112.	One may start from the proposition that the regulation of access by non-nationals to the labour market is a matter in which the State has a considerable and vital interest. This interest is especially acute in the context of access to that market by asylum seekers. Recent experience – both in this State and elsewhere in the European Union – has shown that the careful system of asylum adjudication introduced by the Geneva Conventions in the aftermath of the horrors of the Second World War currently labours under severe stress. The last twenty years or so have witnessed very significant numbers of applications for asylum in this State, often in circumstances where the applicants themselves are simply economic migrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families and who could not qualify as asylum seekers.
113.	The evidence in the High Court furthermore clearly showed – and McDerrmott J. very properly accepted - that if asylum seekers were permitted to work in the State pending the determination of their asylum claim this would operate as a form of “pull” factor which would tempt many economic migrants to come here and to make asylum claims. All of this would place further burdens on an already heavily burdened State asylum system. If, moreover, such economic migrants could arrive here and immediately claim a right to work pending the adjudication of their asylum system, this would tend to undermine the integrity of the asylum system by encouraging false and abusive claims at the hands of those who were in reality simply economic migrants.
115.	While these comments were made in the context of access to the courts, similar observations may be made a fortiori in terms of the access of non-nationals to the labour market.
116.	The exclusion of non-nationals from the labour market accordingly serves important State goals which are based on rational considerations. The dangers presented to the organisation of society by unrestricted or unregulated migration are obvious and all free and democratic societies have seen fit to impose restrictions on such migration for reasons that are all too clear. Legislation giving effect to this State policy cannot accordingly be regarded in principle as unconstitutional. It follows, therefore, that a measure which excluded non-nationals entirely from the labour market for even a period of years would not in principle - and I again stress these words - be unconstitutional.
117.	That, however, does not mean that this particular section should necessarily survive constitutional challenge in its present form. The all-embracing and, most especially, the indefinite nature of the exclusion from any type of gainful occupation, is particularly striking. It is clear from the Heaney test that the essence of the constitutional right in question must be preserved if the impugned legislative measure in question is to pass any proportionality analysis.
118.	In the present case the applicant has been waiting for over seven years for a proper and lawful adjudication of his asylum claim. If he indeed has a constitutional right to work and to earn a livelihood (albeit a right which is more qualified than that which would apply in the case of citizens), how much longer is he supposed to wait before he is granted permission to seek to take up some gainful occupation? It is one thing to wait for a fixed (if lengthy) period in a scheme of direct provision: it is quite another to wait for over seven years in circumstances where individual autonomy and self-respect is sapped and where the key constitutional objective of preserving the essential dignity of the individual is ultimately compromised by a State scheme which over a prolonged period of time leads to idleness, aimlessness, demoralisation and, ultimately, psychological difficulties and, doubtless in some instances, psychiatric disturbance.
119.	Extraordinary delays of this kind moreover lessen the State’s interest in maintaining such complete exclusions from the labour market in the case of asylum seekers such as the applicant. If applicants for asylum were entitled to work as soon as they arrived in the State (or, at any rate, quickly thereafter), it may be assumed that such a “pull” factor would be likely to attract very large numbers of economic migrants who claimed asylum upon their arrival. If, for example, asylum seekers were required to wait for three years before any application for permission to work could be considered, this would have the effect of deterring many – admittedly not all – claimants who were in reality economic migrants. But very few economic migrants who arrived under the guise of making asylum claims while in reality seeking employment opportunities would be attracted to come here in order to wait for seven years before being permitted even to apply for permission to enter the labour market.
120.	For my part, I do not think that the Heaney proportionality test should be applied in some mechanistic or formalistic fashion such as would essentially negate the core of the fundamental right. It would be a poor constitutional right indeed that could endure without objection such an open-ended exclusion lasting for more than seven years.
121.	Nor do I think that the Heaney test should be applied in such a fashion as would obscure the very reason of having a Constitution with fundamental rights guarantees in the first place. It was never the intention of the drafters of the Constitution that these fundamental right guarantees would be reduced to pure platitudinous statements of benevolent good will which could readily be overborne once any attempt to take these rights seriously was likely to prove inconvenient or might thwart policy choices made by the Oireachtas or the Government. The object instead was to the ensure that, subject to the ultimate decision of the People via the referendum process, the substance and core of certain fundamental rights of the individual should be placed beyond the reach of majority vote in the Oireachtas. This objective, was, after all, as the Preamble to the Constitution declares, to secure the dignity and freedom of the individual as befits a democratic society governed by the rule of law. These are objectives which soar above the exigencies of public administration, the fine calculations of the legislative and the executive branches or the vagaries of public opinion.
122.	Measured against these considerations I am driven to the conclusion that the open-ended and indefinite exclusion of the applicant from the labour market contained in s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act for a period now lasting over seven years strikes at the very substance of his constitutional right to earn a livelihood. It fails the Heaney proportionality test for this precise reason.
123.	It is for this reason that I find myself respectfully differing from the contrary conclusion reached by McDermott J. in the High Court.
124.	I would accordingly grant the applicant a declaration that s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act is unconstitutional in its present form. While, for the reasons I have already stated, I do not think that legislation of this kind is in principle unconstitutional, provided that the periods of exclusion from the labour market are not of indefinite duration capable (as here) of applying for very many years to individuals such as the applicant. Given, however, that the legislation applies in this indefinite fashion, I see no alternative but to invalidate this sub-section by reason of its constitutional overbreadth.
the constitutional issue is concerned and that I am in dissent on this question of constitutional validity, I propose now to consider arguments based on the European Convention of Human Rights. In this context the first thing to note is that the ECHR has no counterpart to Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution. Nor can I identify any specific provision of the Convention which could be said to be deal with the right to earn a livelihood along the lines recognised by the Supreme Court in cases such as Murphy v. Stewart, Cox and the Employment Equality Bill.
126.	All of the ECHR authorities relied on by Mr. Lynn S.C. on behalf of the applicant involved cases where individual freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (such as the right to private life in Article 8 ECHR) inter-acted with national employment law. Thus, in Demir v. Turkey  ECHR 1345 the European Court held that the nullification of a collective trade union agreement violated Article 11 ECHR (right of association). In Martínez v. Spain  ECHR 615, (2015) 60 EHRR 3 a Spanish Employment Tribunal held that the non-renewal of a teaching contract of a priest charged with teaching Roman Catholic faith doctrine was lawful as the priest in question was married with children, contrary to the teachings of his Church. The European Court held that this was not a breach of Article 8 given that the Spanish state was entitled to take proportionate measures to protect the autonomy and religious freedom of the Church. Finally, in Volkov v. Ukraine  ECHR 288 the dismissal of a judge because he had, inter alia, heard appeals from his brother-in-law was held to be a breach of Article 8 ECHR.
127.	These – and other similar decisions of the ECHR – are all cases with one unifying theme, namely, the impact of substantive provisions of the Convention (such as private life or the right to free speech or association) and domestic employment law in certain, specific factual circumstances. There is, however, nothing at all in the extensive jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which suggests that there exists a substantive, free standing right to earn a livelihood of the kind under the ECHR which might otherwise assist the applicant.
129.	I would accordingly decline to grant the applicant a declaration pursuant to s. 5 of the European Convention of Human Right Act 2003 that s. 9(4) of the 1996 Act of the 1996 is incompatible with the State’s ECHR obligations.
130.	In summary, therefore, I believe that on its proper construction s. 9(4) of the 1996 Act (as applied by s. 9(11)) precludes an asylum seeker engaging in any gainful activity pending the determination of his or her claim. In these circumstances, the Minister enjoys no discretion to grant such permission, whether by virtue of the inherent executive power under Article 28.2 of the Constitution or otherwise.
131.	The State lawfully exercised its discretion to opt-out of the Reception Directive which addresses the right of asylum seekers to work after an interval of time. The State cannot accordingly be said to be “implementing” EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
132.	Even if the State were indeed implementing EU law for this purpose, it is clear that Article 15.1 of the Charter dealing with the right to work does not avail the applicant. On the contrary, Article 15.3 of the Charter makes it clear that the rights of non-nationals to work within the European Union territory are confined to those who are authorised to work for this purpose. The applicant is not, of course, so authorised.
133.	In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Electoral (Amendment) Bill it is clear that non-nationals are in principle entitled to invoke the fundamental rights guarantees contained in Article 40 to Article 44 of the Constitution, even if in some circumstances the exercise of such rights by non-nationals may legitimately be subjected to restrictions which could not legitimately be applied to citizens.
135.	Given the State’s interest in deterring illegal migration and false claims for asylum by those who are simply economic migrants, an absolute exclusion on the right to work for even a period of years would not in principle be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, I am of the view that s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act as cast in its current form fails a proportionality test in that provided for an indefinite exclusion of this applicant from the labour market in circumstances where he has now been waiting for over seven years for a valid and proper adjudication on his application for asylum.
136.	It is in these circumstances that I find myself coerced to the conclusion that s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act negates the core and substance of the applicant’s constitutional right to earn a livelihood. I would accordingly grant the applicant a declaration that s. 9(4)(b) of the 1996 Act is unconstitutional.
137.	The ECHR does not contain any provision which corresponds to Article 40.3 of the Constitution. I cannot identify any right under the ECHR which would assist his claim regarding a right to work and I would accordingly decline to grant a declaration pursuant to s. 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003 that s. 9(4) of the 1996 Act is incompatible with the State’s obligations under that Convention.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.