The ruling - past charges: It would require "extraordinary circumstances" for the property rights of some of the poorest people in our society to be extinguished in the sole interests of the State's finances, the Supreme Court declared.
No such circumstances or "extreme financial crisis" had been advanced by the State as justification for retrospective legislation which sought to prevent elderly and vulnerable people unlawfully charged for residential care over 30 years from taking steps to recover those monies, the court held.
This was particularly so where many of those people were unlikely to have been aware of their rights under the Health Act, 1970, the court said. In contrast, organs of the State and the health boards were well aware of what was in the Act but the charges continued to be imposed.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Murray, said that in advancing arguments for the retrospective provisions of the Health Amendment No 2 Bill, the State had not contended it was faced with a serious financial crisis.
Taking into account the State's right to limit its liability for the unlawful charges by reliance on the statute of limitations, it was said the figure to be repaid could be up to €500 million. The court had heard the entire health budget for 2005 is €11 billion.
While the court accepted the State may find itself facing a substantial additional financial burden, it was by no means clear that burden was catastrophic or beyond the means of the State to provide for within the scope of normal budgetary management, the judge said.
The State had sought to have those people who were unlawfully charged for their care bear the burden of those unlawful charges in order to protect the Exchequer generally and the health budget in particular.
The State's rationale for doing so was that those persons had benefited from the services but, Mr Justice Murray said, the court did not accept this was a rational basis for requiring such persons to meet the cost of those charges.
The court was satisfied the retrospective provisions they constituted - in breach of Articles 43 and 40.3.2 of the Constitution - were an unjust attack on the property rights of some of the most vulnerable citizens, which attack was not required by the exigencies of social justice or the common good.
The persons who paid the charges had a property right consisting of a right of action to recover the monies. The absence of compensation was, in reality, the object of the legislation.
The retrospective provisions could not be described as "regulating" property rights.
It was straining the meaning of references in Article 43.2.1 to "principles of social justice" to extend this to the expropriation of property in the financial interests of the State.
Nor could the legislation be regarded as curative because, in deeming lawful the imposition of unlawful charges, the Bill was directly contrary to the legislative intent of the initial legislation, the Health Act, 1970.
The Chief Justice said that, through the Health Act, 1970, and as clarified by the Supreme Court in a decision in 1976, the Oireachtas required health boards to make inpatient services available, free of charge, to persons suffering from physical or mental disability.
In 1976, the Department of Health sent a circular to health boards informing them of regulations regarding charges for residential care and stating those charges did not apply to persons with "full eligibility" - medical card holders.
However, it also said that a person who, while in their own home, was deemed to have "full eligibility", could not be regarded as such when being maintained in an institution.
Following that circular, the boards continued to charge medical card holders for in-patient services. The Health Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2001, had placed beyond doubt the question that such services were illegal.
While the State rightly conceded there was no conceivable basis upon which anybody could have thought the charges could be reasonably levied after that, they continued to be.
In 2004, the Attorney General advised the State the charges were imposed on a flawed legal basis going back to 1976.
The charges continued to be imposed. The Supreme Court therefore assumed the charges were unlawfully imposed and paid for a period as far back as 1976.
The law recognised a cause of action for restitution of money unlawfully paid to a public authority. While some persons objected to paying the charges, this had not happened to any significant extent.
