CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 February 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45322/21 A and B against Ireland lodged on 10 September 2021 communicated on 8 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is an Irish citizen, born in Ireland in 2019. Her mother, the second applicant, is a Nigerian national who had sought residency in Ireland on the basis of her Irish-born child, but had not been granted leave to remain at the time of the application. The applicants complain under Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about sections 220 and 246 of the Social Welfare Act 2005, which excludes parents who have not yet been granted a legal right to reside in the State from receiving a monthly child benefit payment in respect of a child who has a legal right to reside. The applicants maintain that following the decision of the Supreme Court in Michael (a minor) v Minister for Social Protection [2019] IESC 82 no domestic remedy was available to them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants suffer any significant disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3(b) of the Convention, as a result of the application of sections 220 and 246 of the Social Welfare Act?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read together with either Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?