Breach of right to travel

MagicSean

This thread was started in the economy forum but its just become a public service bashing forum so its probably better off here. Basically the question asked was wether people who lost out on holidays as a result of not having a passport could sue the cpsu for the costs and for breaching their right to free movement within the EU.

Personally I think that they couldn't as the CPSU has only banned overtime and this is the cause of the delays and backlog. Since workers aren't obliged to work overtime any liability would fall on the employers for running a system dependent on overtime.

Lab_Mouse

Surely it's the travellers look out to have an up to date passport?

Seriously what fool leaves it till the week before they go ,to go in and get their passports renewed?(loads from what you see on the news footage apparently).

The employee's are working to rule i.e the conditions in their contracts although maybe tthem shutting early on one of the days might be a problem?

MagicSean

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Surely it's the travellers look out to have an up to date passport?

Seriously what fool leaves it till the week before they go ,to go in and get their passports renewed?(loads from what you see on the news footage apparently).

The employee's are working to rule i.e the conditions in their contracts although maybe tthem shutting early on one of the days might be a problem?

Well they only shut the counters. I presume the processing still continued.

dermot_sheehan

Someone should really sue the Minister for Foreign Affairs and CPSU on this.

A passport is a constitutional and legal entitlement, and an injunction can be got restraining someone from interfering with your right to one.

There was the INTO case if I remember where school children successfully injuncted a teachers union which was interfering with their constitutional right to primary education

Lab_Mouse

But they arent refusing them passports,it's just the processing is being delayed because the staff are working to rule.Would that have an effect on the case if it was brought to court?

Victor

gabhain7 wrote: »

There was the INTO case if I remember where school children successfully injuncted a teachers union which was interfering with their constitutional right to primary education

Dunmanway I believe. In that case the union preventted the children from going to other schools also.

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

But they arent refusing them passports,it's just the processing is being delayed because the staff are working to rule.Would that have an effect on the case if it was brought to court?

Its more than that. They are also refusing to allow temporary staff to be employed, as is normal at this time of year.

MagicSean

Victor wrote: »

Its more than that. They are also refusing to allow temporary staff to be employed, as is normal at this time of year.

I think that part is open to debate. They have no right to block staff hiring. But they have no obligation to train them either. So are they really blocking staff being hired just by refusing to train them?

walrusgumble

I am asking a question here, so please don't take this as giving a comment or statement of fact, as I could be completely wrong.

Someone said one has a Constitutional right to a passport. But is this right absolute? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the right to refuse, where say there is abuse.

However, as someone has pointed out, these people have not been refused. Would a court be entitled to issue an injunction or a mandamus order? Wouldn't that mean that the Court would be dicating to the government how it relocates money and staff resources? There have been recent High Court cases in relation to the delay of granting a decision/lawful decision to non irish people who are waiting for citizenship. The Courts have ruled against granting any relief in these cases. Reference to separation of powers and you know the Supreme Court's Haridman J loves that principle. How many judges would see the work to rule problem,in light of current economic conditions (and hassle of them not automactically signing up to, ahem, their reductions in pay) which the government faces as being exeptional to the doctrine?

Wouldn't the affected people have to put the passport section on advance notice of their travels and time being of the essence have being put to them in order to get relief/damges (thou you could say that fact that one pays extra for the 10 day express service be some evidence of the urgency)

Why the hell did people leave it so late?

Victor

I don't think the courts expect things to be done "just like that".

Also the court would be enabling the spending of money, not demanding it.

GerardKeating

k_mac wrote: »

Basically the question asked was wether people who lost out on holidays as a result of not having a passport could sue the cpsu for the costs and for breaching their right to free movement within the EU.

Most of the EU rights in relation to free movement related to economic activity, you have free movement to take up a job in the EU, not sure if this would cover vacations.

Our man in Havana

It sure would cover it.

jacko1

GerardKeating wrote: »

Most of the EU rights in relation to free movement related to economic activity, you have free movement to take up a job in the EU, not sure if this would cover vacations.

You've obviously never heard of citizenship of the Union ?

walrusgumble

GerardKeating wrote: »

Most of the EU rights in relation to free movement related to economic activity, you have free movement to take up a job in the EU, not sure if this would cover vacations.

See the Treaty Artilces

and

Artilce 6 and 7 (1) (b) of the Directive 2004 / 38 EC

GerardKeating

jacko1 wrote: »

You've obviously never heard of citizenship of the Union ?

There is no such thing... We are all still citizens of the individual states of the Union.

walrusgumble wrote: »

See the Treaty Artilces

and

Artilce 6 and 7 (1) (b) of the Directive 2004 / 38 EC

But does not most of this relates to how citizen are treated when they are in another European union country, when ones is in ones own country, national laws apply.

jacko1

GerardKeating wrote: »

There is no such thing... We are all still citizens of the individual states of the Union.

sorry to disappoint you but we are all citizens of the Union and it gives you the right of non economic mobility throughout the EU

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/citizenship_of_the_union/index_en.htm

walrusgumble

GerardKeating wrote: »

There is no such thing... We are all still citizens of the individual states of the Union.



But does not most of this relates to how citizen are treated when they are in another European union country, when ones is in ones own country, national laws apply.

I did not point out the Treaty artilces in relation to freemovement of people, service, and goods simply because, personally, i get confused with the numbers as they have changed so much. Thats extremely sad and lazy, particularily when I am quoting them THey are in the region of circa 35-42ish.

However, they relate to (a) how another eu national should be treated in another EU State, (b) the right to freely move within the union, with restrictions, in particular, without discrimination on basis of nationality.

Directive 2004/38 EC specifically deals with the right of one national of a member state to move to another member state to work and reside and to family reunification, permenant residency. It consolidates and creates some new provisions (as created by previous caselaw) It deals with economic motives and non economic motives and deals with the situation where one has resided in a state but is no longer economically viable. It further deals when the situation where a member state national in a host state can be expelled from the host state (as provided from previous case law)

Yes the Directive does specifically deal with people who have actually exercised or are excersing their EU rights in another state. THe only time such laws would effect Irish people whilst residing in Ireland, is when they went to another country and returned to this State (be careful here as case law such as Akrich and Singh deal with illegals and had contrasting outcomes, moreover, they were judged a good while before this directive came into force)Alternatively, in relation to family reunification, case of Carpenter might apply despite one mainly living in Ireland but clearly exercising another EU fundamental right, such as carrying out services or working in another eu state

The point of the EU laws here is that, under EU law, and in particular under the Directive, which specificaly deals with this in the preamble, there should be little or no obstacles in the way of a person in being able to exercise their rights, one has the freedom of exiting their country. (obviously public safety, health etc applies)

But ye, I would imagine, that Irish law would be dealt with first, but because we are European Citizens as well, our Treaty and ECHR rights would be influential. What does others think?

bigbrotherfan

Hard to blame those who went about changing their passports with 6 weeks notice. The moral of the story here must be to leave far more time than you need. If your passport is out next year (as mine is) then you go about changing it with 6 months to go.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

I don't think the courts expect things to be done "just like that".

Also the court would be enabling the spending of money, not demanding it.

haven't people paid their 90 euros or so to get the passport, so there's an implicit contract there for the courts to enforce? I doubt the production costs are higher than the price, especially as the staff costs have been reduced recently.

bigbrotherfan

Seems to be not so bad in the Cork passport office though, from what I can see.