Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jomon  John

Ryanair DAC

Representatives

Kenneth Hyland BL,                               Hayley Tarmey Sol.,                                            Ennis and Associates LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00070242-001

20/03/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 8th of April 2025. In general terms, I will therefore initially be looking at issues (acts of discrimination) that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. The cognisable period is the 9th of October 2024 to the 8th of April 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant gave oral evidence largely in line with the narrative set out in the workplace relations complaint form which read as follows:.

On 24 November 2024, l was denied boarding on Ryanair Flight FR660 despite holding a valid Irish permanent residence permit (Stamp 5). Ryanair staff informed me that, as an Indian citizen, I was required to obtain a UK visa, even though:

 The Common Travel Area (CTA) allows Irish and EU citizens to travel freely to the UK, but Ryanair applied different rules to non-EU long-term residents in Ireland.

Other airlines, including Aer Lingus, have allowed Stamp 5 holders to travel under CTA, proving inconsistent enforcement.

I have previously travelled from Dublin to the UK without any visa requirements on another airline.

This inconsistency in policy enforcement led to:

 Financial loss due to missed commitments.

Stress and uncertainty regarding my travel rights.

 Lack of clear communication from Ryanair authorities regarding the legal basis for denial.

The Complainant opened a number of documents in support of his complaint that the Respondent had discriminated against him on the 24th of November 2024.

The Complainant has included a number of comprehensive submissions in advance of the hearing date. These are dated the 6th of October 2025 and the 9th of December 2025 and the 11th of December 2025. I have read through these. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as propriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against when the Ryanair Customer Services desk refused to provide the Complainant with a boarding pass for a flight from Dublin to the UK on the 24th of November 2024. He is asserting that this was discriminatory on the grounds of his race.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was alsorepresented by a number of witnesses including JN the Immigration Administrator with Ryanair. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated the 6th of October 2025 and the 27th of November 2025. In brief, the Respondent’s position might be summarised as follows (per the submission) :-

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was denied boarding as he did not possess a visa which is an entry requirement for an Indian national traveling to the UK.

 The Respondent respectfully submits that the Complainant’s travel was correctly refused as the Respondent complied with legal requirements, namely the immigration requirement of the destination country and further the policy is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving the aim are appropriate and necessary.

The Respondent respectfully submits that it acted wholly appropriately, no discrimination occurred as is demonstrated below with reference to other passengers denied boarding for failing to have the correct travel documentation.

 The Respondent respectfully submits that to permit the travel of a passenger who does not hold the required travel documentation would amount to a non-application of laws applicable to Ryanair and would facilitate travel with is contrary to law.

All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witnesses were questioned by the Complainant.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties herein. Certain matters were agreed as between the parties. The Complainant is an Indian National and holds an Indian Passport. The Complainant does hold an Irish Stamp 5 Permanent Residence Permit (‘the Stamp 5 Permit’). This document is not a travel document but rather grants the holder the right to reside in Ireland “without condition as to time”.  This document is provided by the Irish State and specifically does not equate to citizenship. The Complainant agreed with these points.

When the Complainant travels, he does so on his Indian passport. He does not travel on the basis of his having a right of residence in Ireland. The Complainant agreed with this point.

In the circumstances, the Complainant does not enjoy the reciprocal rights and privileges enshrined in the Common Travel Area.

The CTA provides reciprocal rights and privileges enjoyed by Irish and British citizens in each other’s state. It is a long-standing administrative arrangement, re-confirmed by a (post Brexit) Memorandum of Understanding in 2019.  The Common Travel Area provides for the free movement of Irish and British citizens; it does not provide for the free movement of non-Irish and non-British citizens. The Common Travel Area does not affect or remove the requirement for a non-Irish and non-British citizen who requires a visa to enter the UK, to have that said visa.

In the circumstances, the Complainant who has a right to reside indefinitely in Ireland does not have Irish citizenship and cannot therefore avail of the benefits of the Common Travel Area.

I heard comprehensive evidence from the Ryanair witnesses wherein the expectation is that staff on the ground (in Dublin airport in this instance) must ensure that persons travelling on Ryanair are in full compliance with the visa and other mandatory requirements needed to enter the country of destination. There is less of a need to understand where people are coming from or where, indeed they reside. The most important question is whether they are entitled to enter the country they propose flying to. Passengers on international flights are subject to visa requirements of  the destination countries Ryanair are flying them to.

The Complainant purchased a ticket to fly to the UK. He was unable to obtain an electronic boarding pass and was directed to the customer service desk in the airport. It was here that he was told that he could not get a boarding pass as his passport did not have the requisite visa which might allow him lawfully to enter the UK.

The Complainant says he had previously been allowed move to and from the UK on his Indian passport with no visa. I accept that the alleged actions of other airlines and their seemingly relaxed attitude to travel documentation cannot be allowed to temper or persuade the outcome of the matter before me.

I am satisfied, and it seems common case, that Indian nationals must hold a visa to enter the UK or may otherwise be allowed to travel with an Electronic Travel Authorisation. As I understand it, the Electronic Travel Authorization is the same for the UK as the more familiar ESTA is now required by Irish citizens to enter the USA. Both obviate the need to get a visa.

The Complainant seems to have believed that he was exempt from having to obtain an Electronic Travel Authorisation by reason of the existence of a document created by the UK home office and entitled:

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Irish resident exemption

Which has been in operation since the 20th of July 2023. However, this document is only intended to apply to individuals that do not generally need a visa to enter the UK. As evidenced in the opening paragraph: -

This guidance provides details on how to assess whether the exemption from the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) requirements for non-visa nationals lawfully resident in Ireland applies. This exemption does not apply for travel to the UK from outside the Common Travel Area (emphasis added by AO)

The Complainant is not a non-visa national. The Complainant is a national (in this case an Indian national) who will require a visa before entering the UK.

The Complainant has persuaded himself that as an Irish resident he is entitled to move freely between the UK and Ireland and he is exempted from obtaining an Electronic Travel Authorisation. This is a misunderstanding of the scope of the Home Office document which seeks to remove the burden of obtaining an EAT from a limited group of persons of which the Complainant is not one. The Complainant has, at all times, been a non-visa national for the purpose of the document/guidance created in July of 2023.

The Complainant’s attempt to elevate his right of residence in Ireland to some sort of entitlement to also travel without a visa to the UK is misconceived. I am satisfied that Ryanair operatives were acting within the law when they refused the Complainant a boarding pass in the circumstances outlined. I note that pursuant to Section 40 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1993, airlines, including Ryanair are subject to fines for non-compliance with UK immigration law. The Ryanair legal representative opened up some examples of recent occasions when the airline had to bear the cost of maintaining and returning individuals who had travelled without the appropriate visa/paperwork.

Before making any final finding on the merits of the claim I have been invited by the Respondent to consider a preliminary matter. In this regard, Counsel for the Respondent asked that I consider the tardiness of the Complainant’s ES1 form as a preliminary matter. I consider that matter as follows:

The date on which the Complainant was not allows to take his flight was the 24th November 2024.

Without doubt and pursuant to section 21(2) of the Equal Status Act there is an obligation on a Complainant before seeking redress under the Act, to notify the Respondent and the Complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

It was only on the 18th of March 2025 (nearly four months later) that the Complainant first brought this matter to the attention of the Respondent. For reasonable cause, I can direct that the two-month period can be extended to four months. However, I am satisfied that no reasonable cause or exceptional circumstance, or any or any adequate prejudice is identified by the Claimant to warrant an extension of the limitation period. I have therefore no jurisdiction to deal with to make any finding herein.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00070242-001  - The Complainant failed, within 2 months after the alleged prohibited conducted occurred, to notify the respondent in writing of the nature of the allegation and the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act. In the absence of this pre-requisite I do not have the jurisdiction to allow the Complainant seek redress through the WRC.