SINT MAARTEN–For years, persons living in Sint Maarten have suffered from the government of Sint Maarten not accepting their petitions (read: applications) for arbitrary reasons not cited in the law. However, on October 20, 2023, The Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten rendered a pivotal judgment that may change how government offices/entities handle petitions/applications submitted to them.
The case was handled by the legal team of Brooks & Associates, led by Attorney at law Brenda Brooks. The matter concerned a Venezuelan national (hereinafter: “the applicant”) who has resided in Sint Maarten for 30 years and was working at the same employer for the latter ten years. The applicant had residency under family reunification. In 2022, the applicant’s residency permit was rejected, and the relationship with his partner ended; the applicant, through his previous representative, attempted to submit an application through the so-called “Pilot Program.” The Pilot Program was, at least according to the coalition, an opportunity for undocumented persons who resided in Sint Maarten for five or more years, with or without residency, or persons employed by the same employer for five or more years. A list on the government’s website clearly stated who was eligible and what was necessary for a residency and labor permit under the Pilot Program.
Unfortunately for the applicant, the government refused to accept his application, citing that he did not meet the requirements as he had residency permits in the recent past. The applicant approached the Offices of Brooks & Associates and was represented by Ashton Richardson, LL.M., who engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Government of Sint Maarten for months about why the application would not be accepted. Ashton Richardson, known for handling administrative cases, faced challenges in other cases, too, as the list of documents published by the government did not reflect the actual requirements, and the civil servants handling the pilot project applications would, at times, refuse to accept the applications, further stating that additional documents are still needed. At least in other cases, Mr. Richardson was allowed to provide additional documents (despite the constant back and forth with the government on the relevancy of documents that were missing from the list of requirements).
The applicant’s case appeared to be different, as when Richardson attempted to submit the pilot program application, the handling civil servants refused to take the application. When it was requested that the reasons for this be provided in writing, Richardson would be met with the usual response, “We don’t do that here.” Richardson entered into yet another lengthy chain of correspondence with the government, including the relevant Minister of Justice, Minister of VSA, and the Minister of TEATT, all of whom were responsible for the program. After receiving no response, he threatened legal action, which was also met with no response.
Following the non-response from the government, a lengthy and detailed petition was filed at the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten, where Attorney Brooks requested that the Government of Sint Maarten be ordered by the Court to accept the pilot program application, as well as payment of the legal fees and attorney fees. The government of Sint Maarten reached out to the Offices of Brooks & Associates and made a settlement offer to accept the application, which was accepted. What parties could not agree on was the legal fees. Hence, the Court was requested to render a judgment on the legal fees.
The Court seized the opportunity and rendered a judgment on the fees but still touched on whether the government of Sint Maarten, through its civil servants, could refuse a petition. The Court ruled that the applicant in the case was hindered by the Country of Sint Maarten, through its civil servants, to submit his petition, and through this hindrance, by the civil servants, the applicant had no administrative recourse. However, the applicant was open to seeking a civil alternative through the civil judge in order to seek recompense for the protection of his rights.
This landmark judgment opens the way for persons whose petitions have been refused by handling civil servants to seek legal recourse in the event the handling civil servants refuses to accept their applications and/or issue their reasons for the refusal in writing by means of seeking legal recourse at the civil Court.
The right to petition enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution of Sint Maarten is pivotal in Sint Maarten’s democratic structure, and it is imperative to the Offices of Brooks & Associates to continue to fight to ensure that the government remains compliant with the Country of Sint Maarten’s constitution.
Recent Comments