Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 7 May 2026
228. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if compensation mechanisms are in place for the losses incurred for a person (details supplied) as a result of being prevented from working, given that the process has extended for nearly seven years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33549/26]
View answer229. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance given that costs were awarded against an organisation in a case (details supplied), the total cost to the Exchequer to date arising from this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33550/26]
View answer230. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will consider establishing a compensation or protection fund to support individuals who suffer loss arising from wrongful prohibitions or from investigations that are ultimately discontinued such as took place in a case (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33551/26]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 228, 229 and 230 together.
I am aware of the High Court judgment in this case and while the High Court notified the parties of its decision on a confidential basis in May 2025 there was no basis or requirement to share the judgment with any other parties at that time.
There are various avenues open to individuals and firms to challenge decisions of the Central Bank, including depending on the decision, appeals to the Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal (IFSAT) or a judicial review of the decision.
In terms of timing, it should be noted that the Central Bank (Individual Accountability Framework) (IAF), 2023 amended the Central Bank Act 2010 to provide that a prohibition notice does not now take effect until confirmed by the High Court unless otherwise agreed in accordance with section 46, where an individual is in agreement with the prohibition.
Public bodies, including the Central Bank, when carrying out statutory duties do so within the limits of the legislative provisions that underpin their actions.
Section 45, Central Bank Act 2010 does not provide for compensation and I do not see a basis on which the compensation mechanism proposed by the Deputy could operate efficiently or effectively. There would need to be a strong policy rationale to consider such a change in the law.
Indeed, such an approach could likely have implications for other State entities, outside the area of financial services, that have similar powers of investigation and application of penalties as the Central Bank.
On the matter of costs, the Central Bank has informed me that it is too early to determine the full costs of this case. The timeline for initial quantification of costs is 28 days from the perfection of the Order by the High Court and this has not yet happened.
In terms of costs, the Central Bank of Ireland is self-funding though its own income and the industry levy and is a body not in receipt of funds from the Exchequer for its daily operations. Accordingly, any such costs do not arise as a direct charge on the Exchequer.
