Rahman v Healy & Ors

admin

Respondent/Defendant:Superintendent Columba Healy, Superintendent Thomas Murphy (As Authorised Officers for the Dublin Metropolitan Region), Commissioner Of An Garda Síochána
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 206
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Apr 2022
Judge:Simons G.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Employment, Family Member
Country of Origin:Bangladesh
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5c17e3d3-2037-422f-9ce1-47a23109582f/2022_IEHC_206.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, held a residence permit in the State on the basis of marriage to an EU citizen. The marriage dissolved and the applicant applied to retain his residence permit. This was refused in May 2019. The applicant sought a review of this decision, and a review decision was issued in March 2021, upholding the … Read More

Principles:The licencing authority cannot refuse to issue an SPSV licence on the grounds that a person held a temporary immigration permission and cannot issue licences for periods of less than five years. However, the licensing authority can have regard to adverse findings made against the applicant in the context of the immigration process when assessing their 'good character'.
Go Back

P v the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


P v the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 609
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2021
Judge:Barrett M.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employment, Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Non-EU National, Residence Permit, Third-Country National
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b0d2c886-bd5e-469b-b142-8e71c4698344/2021_IEHC_609.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: Mr P, a third-country national, initially applied to remain in Ireland as a permitted family member of an EU citizen. This application was refused and Mr P was in the process of seeking a review of this decision. As a result, Mr P did not have a permission to remain in the State. He applied for a General Employment … Read More

Principles:The Minister cannot refuse an application for a General Employment Permit on the ground that a person does not hold an immigration permission in the State, without examining the specific circumstances of the case and where there is no specific and relevant policy on examining applications for employment permits from persons without an immigration permission.
Go Back

Hossain v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


Hossain v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 152
Judgment Date/s:03 Mar 2021
Judge:Barr A.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employment, Employment of LEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Employment Permit, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Bangladesh
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/f2a4e33c-038a-41a3-abd3-0442605c3c72/37ebbbfc-2aaf-4f1b-9f83-4a47e10cd612/2021_IEHC_152.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, was initially in Ireland as the spouse of an EU citizen. He held a Stamp 4 on this basis. The marriage subsequently broke down. Prior to the expiry of the applicant’s Stamp 4 permission, he applied for an employment permit. This application was refused on the grounds that at the time of application, … Read More

Principles:A person who holds a valid immigration permission is not precluded from applying for an employment permit.
Go Back

Coman v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:ECLI:EU:C:2018:385
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary reference
Judgment Date/s:05 Jun 2018
Judge:Lenaerts K.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, EU Treaty Rights, Family Member, Free Movement, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Romania, America
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-673/16
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts: Mr Coman, who held Romanian and American citizenship, and Mr Hamilton, an American citizen, met in New York in June 2002 and lived there together from May 2005 to May 2009. Mr Coman then took up residence in Brussels in order to work at the European Parliament as a parliamentary assistant, while Mr Hamilton continued to live in New … Read More

Principles:

Where a Union citizen has made use of his freedom of movement by moving to and taking up genuine residence, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, and, whilst there, has created or strengthened a family life with a third-country national of the same sex to whom he is joined by a marriage lawfully concluded in the host Member State, Member States may not refuse to grant that third-country national a right of residence on the basis that the law of that Member State does not recognise marriage between persons of the same sex.

A third-country national of the same sex as a Union citizen whose marriage to that citizen was concluded in a Member State in accordance with the law of that state has the right to reside in the territory of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national for more than three months. That derived right of residence cannot be made subject to stricter conditions than those laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2004/38.

Go Back

Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2017] IESC 52
Judgment Date/s:13 Jul 2017
Judge:O’Malley I.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Immigration, Non-EU National, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/608f029a-2647-4aee-9435-0f6b213386bd/2017_IESC_52_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The plaintiff’s wife, a French national, lived and worked in the State between 1999 and the end of 2004, and the plaintiff resided here throughout that period and beyond. In 2007, the plaintiff applied for permanent residence pursuant to art.16 of Directive 2004/38/EC and reg.12 of the Irish implementing regulations, the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No.2) Regulations … Read More

Principles:

The plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to Francovich damages because the error of law made by the Minister in refusing his application for permanent residence was not inexcusable.

Go Back

GC v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 215
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:04 Apr 2017
Judge:O’Regan M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Protection (International), Removal Order
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/22a7c887-3ca6-4a73-b5c3-5944bd0c9dab/2017_IEHC_215_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Romanian citizen who had permanent residence in Ireland. In 2015 he was convicted of assault and sentenced to three years and six months in prison with the final two years suspended. The Minister subsequently issued a removal order in respect of the applicant together with a three year exclusion order. The applicant instituted proceedings challenging … Read More

Principles:

This decision establishes that a decision-maker is not obliged as a general rule to conduct his or her own investigations in order to establish the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for international protection.

Go Back

Ahsan v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 691
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Oct 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Third-Country National, Union Citizen, Visa
Country of Origin:United Kingdom/Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/208f7b4e-f207-4984-9ae9-98f2a6316beb/2016_IEHC_691_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an EU citizen who had moved to the State and wanted a visa for his wife to allow her join him. The rights asserted by the applicants arose pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC (“the Citizens’ Directive”) and in particular article 5(2) which provided that such visas should be issued “as soon as possible and on the basis … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Ahsan establishes that delays of several months in the determination of visa applications by non-national family member of EU citizens to allow them join EU nationals in the State are in breach of EU law, notwithstanding the unprecedented surge in the numbers of such applications which pose logistical difficulties for the Minister. Generalised concerns as to potential abuse of EU Treaty Rights are not sufficient to justify such delays.

Go Back

Mahmood v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 600
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Oct 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Third Country, Union Citizen, Visa
Country of Origin:United Kingdom/Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/af4577cb-1ce2-4d85-98c8-0ef1889462de/2016_IEHC_600_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an EU citizen who intended to move to the State and wanted a visa for his wife to allow her accompany him. The rights asserted by the applicants arose pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC (“the Citizens’ Directive”) and in particular article 5(2) which provided that such visas should be issued “as soon as possible and on the … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Mahmood establishes that delays of several months in the determination of visa applications by non-national family member of EU citizens to allow them accompany the EU nationals to the State are in breach of EU law, notwithstanding the unprecedented surge in the numbers of such applications which pose logistical difficulties for the Minister. Generalised concerns as to potential abuse of EU Treaty Rights are not sufficient to justify such delays.

Go Back

Sandu v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 683
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Removal Order, Residence
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f83deff3-63b2-41dd-9b97-7a7066b1b924/2015_IEHC_683_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Romanian national who sought asylum in Ireland on the 26 March 2001, as did his girlfriend, who was also Romanian, and gave birth to a child in Ireland, who was a citizen by operation of law. They subsequently withdrew their applications for asylum and applied to the Minister for Justice for permission to remain on … Read More

Principles:

When deciding whether or not a person has accumulated 10 years’ residence in the State for the purpose of acquiring enhanced protection from expulsion under Article 28(3) of the Citizens’ Directive, the Minister for Justice must count back from the date upon which the removal order was made in order to ascertain if the necessary period of residence has been completed.

Go Back

PR, JR and KR (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 201
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2015
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Poland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/363467f3-78cc-4e9e-a000-eaa5f2b662c8/2015_IEHC_201_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Polish national and an EU citizen. He had been living in Ireland since October, 2006. He married a Polish national in 2011. They had one child, who was born in Ireland in 2012. In October, 2011, he acquired permanent residence under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 and justify a lengthy exclusion period.

The procedure provided under the Regulations of 2006 for review of the making of removal orders is compliant with EU law and Directive 2004/38/EC.

A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will risk an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

MY and Others v Minister for Justice and Others (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 7
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Jan 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Refugee Law
Keywords:Citizenship, Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Minor, Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/3eac6f17-9a1c-46f2-a49f-f3f0b1f8c013/2015_IEHC_7_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first and second applicants were a married couple from Pakistan residing in Ireland with their three children. They sought inter alia declarations that the first and second applicants, twins born to them in Ireland in 2005, had lawfully resided in the State since the birth of their first child, the third applicant, in 2002, as to render their … Read More

Principles:

The CJEU’s decision in Zambrano and subsequent related cases is to be interpreted as meaning that non-nationals who are unlawfully present in Ireland do not acquire lawful status from the birth of a child who happens to be an Irish/EU citizen.

Go Back

Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Others (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General and An Post
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 582
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:22 Dec 2014
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Residence
Country of Origin:Nigeria / Ireland (naturalised Irish citizen)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/290f664d-7b03-492c-8bc9-421de9ab14a5/2014_IEHC_582_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The plaintiff was a naturalised Irish citizen of Nigerian origin. In October, 2007, he was dismissed from his employment as a postal sorter with An Post on the sole ground that he could not establish at the time to the satisfaction of his employer that he had the right to work in Ireland. In High Court proceedings for damages … Read More

Principles:

In order to bring a damages claim against a Member State like Ireland for breach of EU law under the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 1991 decision in Francovich, the breach must be sufficiently serious. In deciding whether or not this is so, the court must determine whether or not the Member State concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion. In examining that question, the criteria which national courts may take into account include the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed. In general, any loss incurred as a result of a breach must be mitigated. Where loss has occurred due to breach of property rights, Francovich provides an adequate remedy and it is not necessary to compensate the injured party by reference to the property rights provisions of the Constitution of 1937. Nonetheless, recourse to other remedies, such as constitutional protection of the right to one’s good name, may be relevant and obtainable in a given case.

Go Back

Kovalenko v Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 624
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Dec 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9314a321-e09e-43af-81aa-481cb6afb378/2014_IEHC_624_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The second named applicant was a Latvian national and, therefore, a Union citizen. He had been living in Ireland since December, 2003. He married a Latvian in 2005 and had lived with his wife since his removal on foot of a removal order made pursuant to the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, in June, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006.

When assessing whether or not to make such an order, the Minister for Justice is entitled to take into account the nature and seriousness of the criminal conduct and the attitude and subsequent behaviour of the offender. That may be considered alone or, in appropriate circumstances, cumulatively with other factors under the heading of “public policy” when deciding to remove or exclude such a person.

It is not necessarily relevant that the person has not committed any other offences in the meantime; a wider appraisal of the risk to public policy created by allowing him or her to remain in the State must be made by the Minister.

If, when making a removal order or affirming its making, the Minister comes into possession of material information pertaining to the risk posed by the applicant to public policy, it should be put to the applicant for comment in accordance with fair procedures.
A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will lead to an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

Wang (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 311
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Jul 2013
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Adult, Child, Dependant, EU Treaty Rights, Family Formation, Family Member, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Member State (Remain in the), Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Residence, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:China / Hungary
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/86f5c09d-0e67-49c9-a8bd-7b4b05b39981/2012_IEHC_311_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The second applicant was a Chinese national who arrived in the State on a student visa in 2004. She met a Hungarian national in 2005 and they married in 2006. She was subsequently granted permission to remain in the State for a five-year period under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 as the  wife … Read More

Principles:

It was not arguable that a parent could claim to be a dependent of a three year old EU citizen child and an adult could not be the dependent of a child. 

It was arguable that a parent might be considered a member of the household of a minor EU citizen and the term household was open to the interpretation that if one individual is an EU citizen all members of the group could be regarded as equal members of the household.

In applying the Chen principles and considering the question of self-sufficiency within those principles, it must be clear what test of self-sufficiency the Minister was applying. The Minister must reach a reasonable and proportionate conclusion in assessing an application as to whether the Chen conditions are met.

Go Back

Gilani v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 193
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 May 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Overstay(er)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/557e7b66-3cfa-4441-b9d1-eaf2eee056e0/2012_IEHC_193_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Pakistan and had entered the State on a visitor’s visa, overstayed the period of validity of the visa and remained illegally in the State. He had been in a relationship with an Estonian national since 1999 and they had a daughter born in 2007 who was an Irish citizen and therefore an EU … Read More

Principles:

A court could only make a mandatory order to compel a public body to perform a public duty where it was under an obligation to do so and has either wrongfully refused to do so or delayed so egregiously that the delay is tantamount to a refusal.

The decision of the European Court of Justice conferred no right or entitlement on the applicant as a non-EU national father. The rights and protection conferred by Article 20 TFEU apply to the EU citizen only. It is only where the removal of the third country national or the refusal to grant the third country national parent a work permit will necessarily lead to the departure of the EU citizen child from the territory of the Union that Article 20 TFEU can be invoked by the EU citizen to require the relevant Member State to permit the parent to remain and to be employed.

If permission for a non-EU national parent to reside in the State was not renewed and a proposal to deport the person were to be made, that person’s entitlement to avoid deportation would depend not on the principles of Ruiz Zambrano but on the application of the principles protecting family life.

Go Back

Scully v Minister for Justice and Equality


Scully
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 466
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Apr 2012
Category:Deportation, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order, EU Treaty Rights, Family (Nuclear), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Immigrant, Migrant (Labour), Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Residence, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Ireland / Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants were the parents and minor children, whose husband and father, the second applicant was made the subject of a deportation order in 2009, and on foot of which he was deported. An application was made to the Minister to revoke the deportation order but the Minister refused. The applicants sought to quash the refusal to revoke the … Read More

Principles:

The Minister must construe and apply the protections afforded by Article 40.3, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of Ireland and Article 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in light of the personal and family circumstances of applicants, particularly in relation to minor applicants as [Irish and] EU citizens.

The Minister must reach reasonable and proportionate conclusions, given the permanent impact of a deportation order on the personal and family circumstances of applicants, and having regard to any changed facts contained in an application to revoke a deportation order, and to circumstances where there are minor applicants who are [Irish and] EU citizens.

Go Back

Babington v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality et al
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:High Court of Ireland; Inter Partes; Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Mar 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Residence
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/db9838c0-8462-44fc-a601-6d79c288fb42/2012_IEHC_109_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, a Nigerian national married to a Czech national, arrived in the State with his wife in 2005, and was granted residence for an initial period of one year in 2005. In 2007 he was issued with a residence card valid until 2007. In December 2010 he applied for permanent residence on the basis of having resided in … Read More

Principles:

When a five-year permission is granted on one basis of, an application for permanent residence need not necessarily be based on the same condition being fulfilled five years later. So long as one of more of the conditions of Regulation 6(2)(a) of the Regulations is shown to have been complied with throughout the five years, the entitlement to permanent residence is satisfied.

Acknowledgement of entitlement to reside longer than three months does not create any estoppel or curtail the Minister’s entitlement and duty to assess whether the conditions governing entitlement to permanent residence are satisfied five years later.

Go Back

Case C-256/11 – Dereci v Bundesministerium fur Inneres

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Bundesministerium fur Inneres
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2011] ECR I-0000
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU
Judgment Date/s:15 Nov 2011
Judge:Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Child, Dependant, EU Treaty Rights, Family Life (Right to), Regularisation, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Austria
URL:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0256:EN:HTML
Geographic Focus:Europe

The applicants were third country nationals who wished to live with their EU, and Austrian, citizen family members resident in Austria. The Union citizens had not exercised their free movement rights, and were not dependent on the applicants. All applicants had their applications for residence permits refused. The applicants and the Union citizens wished to live together, but there was … Read More

Principles:

European Union law and, in particular, its provisions on citizenship of the Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third country national to reside on its territory, where that third country national wishes to reside with a member of his family who is a citizen of the Union residing in the Member State of which he has nationality, who has never exercised his right to freedom of movement, provided that such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a citizen of the Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

If, in considering, inter alia, a refusal of a residence permit in respect of a third country national, a national court considers that the situation is covered by EU law, it must examine whether the residence permit refusal undermines the right of respect for family life under Article 7 of the Charter. On the other hand, if the national court takes the view that the situation at issue is not covered by EU law, it must undertake an examination under Article 8(1) ECHR.

Go Back

Raducan and Raducan v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 224
Judgment Date/s:03 Jun 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Detention, EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Detention, EU Treaty Rights, Family Member, Removal, Residence Permit, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Romania and Moldova
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/3a677548-57b6-48b6-9f85-310d35a37e8b/2011_IEHC_224_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Mr Raducan was Romanian and Ms Raducan was Moldovan. They married in Romania in 2007. The moved to Ireland in 2007 and in 2010 they returned briefly to Romania. While there, they obtained a certified copy of their marriage certificate. Ms Raducan also obtained a residence card as a family member of a Union citizen. They returned to Ireland on … Read More

Principles:

The procedures at Dublin Airport for spouses of EU citizens are inconsistent with the Citizenship Directive

Go Back

Case C-434/09 McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:Case C-434/09
Nature of Proceedings:Article 234 Reference
Judgment Date/s:05 May 2011
Judge:Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Nationality, Residence Permit, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:United Kingdom and Ireland
URL:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:62009CJ0434
Geographic Focus:Europe
References:Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano v. Office National de l'Emploi

Ms McCarthy, a national of the United Kingdom, was also a national of Ireland. She was born in the United Kingdom and had always resided there, without ever having exercised her right to move and reside freely within the territory of other EU Member States. Following her marriage to a Jamaican national, Ms McCarthy obtained an Irish passport and applied … Read More

Principles:

EU citizens who have never exercised their right of free movement cannot invoke Union citizenship to regularise the residence of their non-EU spouse. Where such persons are not deprived of their right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, their situation has no connection with European Union law

Go Back