A sought permission to bring out of time judicial review proceedings, following the GMC's refusal to treat him as an "exempt person" for the purposes of his registration application.A was a Turkish
A sought permission to bring out of time judicial review proceedings, following the GMC's refusal to treat him as an "exempt person" for the purposes of his registration application.
A was a Turkish doctor, qualified in 1987, who specialised in paediatrics and who had been working in the UK as a self-employed business person, providing private care for disabled children.
On 27 March 2012, he applied for registration with the GMC as an "exempt person" as defined in section 19(2) of the Medical Act 1983, and essentially being those who are nationals of European states and those with an enforceable Community right.
The GMC rejected A's application for registration, stating that it was unaware of any agreement between the EU and Turkey that gave Turkish nationals Community rights, and as such it did not consider him to be an exempt person. In a further letter to A, the GMC reiterated that it did not consider A to be an exempt person, and stated that the EC-Turkey agreement ("the Ankara Agreement") which A had referred to in correspondence had no bearing on registration as a medical practitioner. Instead, the GMC confirmed that an application as an international medical graduate under section 21B of the 1983 Act was appropriate to A's circumstances.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart refused A's application for permission for judicial review, stating that the Articles 9 and 41(1) of the Ankara Agreement did not in themselves confer an enforceable right on A to be treated, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the medical profession, no less favourably than a national of a relevant European state. A could not show he was an exempt person, and that ground of challenge therefore failed.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart also agreed with the GMC that there was no discrimination on the basis of nationality, but on the basis of the type of medical qualification, which host states were entitled to consider. Permission was therefore also refused on that ground.
On the timing point, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart refused to grant an extension of time, stating that "If a party is asking for the indulgence of the court in relation to delay, it must provide full details about what has happened. It is not good enough to provide an inadequate explanation accompanied by apologetic noises and to point out that it was not the result of any fault by the client personally."
He went on to say that "There have to be very good reasons to justify granting an extension of time when a claim is lodged outside the relevant period: the length of the delay and the strength or public importance of the claim will still be relevant factors, but it must be understood that applications for extensions of time will be subjected to close scrutiny". In this case, he considered that no good reasons had been advanced that would justify granting an extension of time.
A was a Turkish doctor, qualified in 1987, who specialised in paediatrics and who had been working in the UK as a self-employed business person, providing private care for disabled children.
On 27 March 2012, he applied for registration with the GMC as an "exempt person" as defined in section 19(2) of the Medical Act 1983, and essentially being those who are nationals of European states and those with an enforceable Community right.
The GMC rejected A's application for registration, stating that it was unaware of any agreement between the EU and Turkey that gave Turkish nationals Community rights, and as such it did not consider him to be an exempt person. In a further letter to A, the GMC reiterated that it did not consider A to be an exempt person, and stated that the EC-Turkey agreement ("the Ankara Agreement") which A had referred to in correspondence had no bearing on registration as a medical practitioner. Instead, the GMC confirmed that an application as an international medical graduate under section 21B of the 1983 Act was appropriate to A's circumstances.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart refused A's application for permission for judicial review, stating that the Articles 9 and 41(1) of the Ankara Agreement did not in themselves confer an enforceable right on A to be treated, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the medical profession, no less favourably than a national of a relevant European state. A could not show he was an exempt person, and that ground of challenge therefore failed.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart also agreed with the GMC that there was no discrimination on the basis of nationality, but on the basis of the type of medical qualification, which host states were entitled to consider. Permission was therefore also refused on that ground.
On the timing point, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart refused to grant an extension of time, stating that "If a party is asking for the indulgence of the court in relation to delay, it must provide full details about what has happened. It is not good enough to provide an inadequate explanation accompanied by apologetic noises and to point out that it was not the result of any fault by the client personally."
He went on to say that "There have to be very good reasons to justify granting an extension of time when a claim is lodged outside the relevant period: the length of the delay and the strength or public importance of the claim will still be relevant factors, but it must be understood that applications for extensions of time will be subjected to close scrutiny". In this case, he considered that no good reasons had been advanced that would justify granting an extension of time.