Man ready to invest £1m was refused passport

A BUSINESSMAN from the former Yugoslavia applied for naturalisation and citizenship under the "Passports for Sale" scheme and…

A BUSINESSMAN from the former Yugoslavia applied for naturalisation and citizenship under the "Passports for Sale" scheme and was about to invest £1 million in business in the State but was then refused a passport, the High Court was told yesterday.

Mr Bugoljub Karic, with an address at Wildwood, Enfield, Essex, England, was given leave to seek a judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing him an Irish passport. He is also seeking declarations that the Minister had no power to refuse the passport and that he complied fully with the requirements of the existing Business Investment Scheme.

Mr Gerard Hogan, for Mr Karic, said the application involved the operation of the Business Investment Scheme by the Minister for Justice, popularly known as the "Passports for Sale" scheme. The scheme provided the Minister with absolute discretion to grant a certificate of naturalisation.

Mr Karic applied in October 1993 for naturalisation and citizenship for himself and his wife when the scheme was in force. He had complied fully with the terms of the scheme.

READ MORE

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 granted the power whereupon a person could apply if they were of Irish descent, or by Irish association, which was taken to mean where there was Irish investment, Mr Hogan said.

Under the conditions, Mr Karic was required to purchase a house, which he did, and to invest £1 million in business, which he was about to do. He duly made the Declaration of Fidelity to the nation before a district court judge on February 24th 1994. He paid the prescribed fee of £500.

However, no passport was issued. There was no full or satisfactory explanation tendered as to the reason, Mr Hogan said.

In May 1994 the scheme was the subject of political controversy and a change was made to its terms in October 1994, when new guidelines were issued on business investments.

Mr Justice McCracken, reviewing correspondence relating to the case, said that it seemed there was sufficient evidence that some form of approval had been granted. He gave leave to seek judicial review.