Meadows v MJELR IESC 3.pdf - European Database of Asylum Law

7onerous, either in itself or in conjunction with a fourteen day limitationperiod, as to infringe the constitutional right of access to the courts or theright to fair procedures."16. The High Court in this case, having reviewed the law, held:-"Accordingly, I take the view that as a matter of law, the applicant has tosatisfy this Court that the grounds as made out for seeking leave to apply forjudicial review are reasonable, arguable and weighty, with the added provisothat they must not be trivial or tenuous."I would affirm this analysis taken by the learned High Court judge as to the term"substantial grounds".Access to court17. Access to court is a fundamental right. However, in addition, the access permittedshould be an effective remedy. A remedy which is so limited that fundamental issues,such as fundamental rights, are not considered may not be effective. If the legislature hasalready limited access to the courts then that factor should not be joined with a principlefrom the common law which further limits the review so as to render it a breach of theConstitution.It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the review process affords an effectiveremedy, especially when access to the court is limited by legislation. While thelegislation applicable in this case has been held to comply with the Constitution, the useof rules at common law to restrict further the access to the courts could affect theconstitutionality of the legal process.Fundamental rights18. Fundamental rights arise in some cases where decisions are being judiciallyreviewed. When the decision being reviewed involves fundamental rights and freedoms,the reviewing court should bear in mind the principles of the Constitution of Ireland,1937, the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003, and the rule of law, whileapplying the principles of judicial review. This includes analysing the reasonableness of a