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

C-239/14: Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Centre public d’action sociale de Huy
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-239/14
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary reference
Judgment Date/s:17 Dec 2015
Judge:L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Third Chamber, acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, M.J. Malenovský, M. Safjan, A. Prechal and K. Jürimäe, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Refugee
Country of Origin:Senegal
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=173121&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=260541
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant was a Senegalese national who applied unsuccessfully for asylum in Belgium. He then made a subsequent examination for asylum which, following a preliminary examination, was not accepted. He was later served with an expulsion order. He challenged a decision to withdraw his social assistance before the courts, which found that the only remedy under Belgian law against a … Read More

Principles:

This decision shows that where a decision is made not to examine further a subsequent application for asylum, it is open to Member States to provide that any appeal against that decision does not have suspensive effect, and such provision will not breach the Procedures Directive or Articles 19(2) or 47 of the CFR.

Go Back

C-472/13: Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-472/13
Nature of Proceedings:Premilinary reference to CJEU
Judgment Date/s:26 Feb 2015
Judge:R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President of the Court, acting as a Judge of the Second Chamber, J.-C. Bonichot (Rapporteur), A. Arabadjiev and J. L. da Cruz Vilaça, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Persecution, Refugee
Country of Origin:USA
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d501ceae4dfd6a46019b86b5bf05600df6.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuSbNr0?text=&docid=162544&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=258468
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant was an American serviceman who was based in Germany and was a helicopter maintenance mechanic. After being ordered to go to Iraq, he claimed asylum in Germany because he considered the war there to be illegal and giving rise to war crimes. He claimed, in essence, that because of his refusal to perform military service in Iraq, he … Read More

Principles:

This decision provides important clarification for the Irish asylum authorities on the circumstances in which refusal to perform military service will expose an applicant for asylum to persecution. It also sets out criteria by reference to which a claim that participation in military service will entail the facilitation of war crimes can be assessed.

Go Back

C-542/13 – M’bodj v Belgium

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Belgium
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-542/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:18 Dec 2014
Judge:Grand Chamber: V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, M. Ilešič, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), T. von Danwitz, J.-C. Bonichot and K. Jürimäe, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, M. Berger and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Mauritania
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160947&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=225679
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Under Belgian law, a foreign national residing in Belgium who could prove his identity and who suffered from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment where there was no appropriate treatment in his country of origin or in the country in which he resided was entitled … Read More

Principles:

Likely deterioration in the health of a proposed deportee on the basis that adequate medical treatment would not be available in his or her country of origin will not amount to “serious harm” within the meaning of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) as implemented by the EU (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013, and therefore will not entitle him or her to subsidiary protection, unless it can be shown that such treatment exists there and that he would be denied it.

The Qualification Directive precludes the Member States from introducing or retaining provisions granting subsidiary protection status provided for in it to a third country national who is suffering from a serious illness simply on the ground that there is a risk that that person’s health would deteriorate as a result of the fact that adequate treatment is not available in his or her country of origin.

Go Back

Case C-562/13 – Abdida v Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Centre public d'action sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-562/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:18 Dec 2014
Judge:CJEU, Grand Chamber: V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, M. Ilešič, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), T. von Danwitz, J.-C. Bonichot and K. Jürimäe, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, M. Safjan, D. Šváby, M. Berger and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Deportation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Deportation, Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Return Decision
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160943&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=223364
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Under Belgian law, a foreign national residing in Belgium who could prove his identity and who suffered from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment where there was no appropriate treatment in his country of origin, or in the country in which he resided, was entitled … Read More

Principles:

Under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a person is entitled to an effective remedy against a decision to remove him or her to his or her country of origin. Under Article 19(2) CFR, such a person may not be removed to a country where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In the light of caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, removal may be precluded in exceptional cases, where the humanitarian grounds are compelling. In order for an appeal against such a decision to be effective, it may be necessary to provide the person concerned with a remedy having suspensive effect on the decision, and, in an appropriate case, to provide him or her with necessary medical treatment pending return.

Go Back

Cases A (C-148/13), B (C-149/13) and C (C-150/13) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-148/13, C-149/13 and C-150/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:02 Dec 2014
Judge:CJEU, Grand Chamber: V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, vice-President, A. Tizzano, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), T. von Danwitz, A. Ó Caoimh and J.-C. Bonichot, Presidents of Chambers, A. Borg Barthet, J. Malenovský, E. Levits, E. Jarašiūnas, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça and C.G. Fernlund, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Refugee
Country of Origin:A (Gambia), B (Afghanistan) and C (Uganda)
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160244&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=224819
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The three above-named applicants for asylum in The Netherlands all claimed to be homosexual. Their applications were rejected for lack of credibility on various grounds. They challenged those decisions and the court dealing with the challenges referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), asking what limits did Article 4 of the Qualification Directive (Directive … Read More

Principles:

When determining applications for international protection, decision-makers are required by the Qualification Directive and the Procedures Directive to take account of the individual position and personal circumstances of the protection applicant. When dealing with applications based on homosexuality, it will not be sufficient to reject their credibility solely on the basis of stereotypical assumptions as to the behaviour of homosexuals. Putting questions to allegedly homosexual applicants about the details of their sexual practices will contravene the CFR, as will encouraging such applicants to submit documentary evidence, such as pictures or videos, of their engaging in homosexual relations, or subjecting them to tests designed to establish their alleged sexuality. The credibility of such applications should not be rejected solely on account of the fact that the claim to be homosexual was not made at the initial stages of a application. In that respect, regard should be had to the personal circumstances of the applicant and any vulnerability on his or her part when assessing any delay in making such a claim.

Go Back

Case C-481/13 – Qurbani v Staatsanwaltschaft Würzburg

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Staatsanwaltschaft Würzburg
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-481/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:17 Jul 2014
Judge:CJEU, Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský, A. Prechal and K. Jürimäe, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Entry (Illegal), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=155104&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=223629
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Article 31(1) of the Geneva Convention provides:- “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the … Read More

Principles:

In the context of references under Article 267 TFEU, the CJEU has jurisdiction to interpret international agreements concluded between Member States and third countries only where the European Union has assumed powers previously exercised by the Member States in the field to which an international convention not concluded by the European Union applied, and the provisions of which had the effect of binding the European Union. That is not the position with regard to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, because the Member States retain certain powers falling within the field of asylum / refugee status. Accordingly, the CJEU has no jurisdiction to interpret the Geneva Convention under the Article 267 TFEU procedure.

Go Back

Case C-604/12 – HN v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-604/12
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:08 May 2014
Judge:CJEU Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Fourth Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de9f0aeac3f43442be9521a6d25246fc25.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4ObxqOe0?text=&docid=151965&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=222399
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant purported to make a stand-alone application for subsidiary protection in Ireland in 2009. The Minister for Justice declined to determine it, on the basis that the applicant had not applied for and been refused a declaration of refugee status, which the Minister said was a condition precedent to his being eligible to apply for subsidiary protection under the … Read More

Principles:

In Irish law, a person who wishes to apply for subsidiary protection must first apply for, and be refused, a declaration of refugee status. This is not prohibited by Directive 2004/83/EC (the “Qualification Directive”) nor by any general rule of EU law, such as the right to good administration.

A person should, however, be able to submit applications for refugee status and subsidiary protection simultaneously. In the event that he or she is refused a declaration of refugee status, the application for subsidiary protection will then be considered and determined.

Go Back

Case C-285/12 – Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

adminLeave a Comment


Diakite
Respondent/Defendant:Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-285/12
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:30 Jan 2014
Judge:CJEU, Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Fourth Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský and A. Prechal, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Guinea
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=147061&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=173363
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:The applicant, a native of Guinea, applied twice for asylum and subsidiary protection in Belgium, being unsuccessful on both occasions. The Commissaire Général’s refusal to grant subsidiary protection was based on the finding that there was no situation of indiscriminate violence or armed conflict in the applicant’s country of origin. The applicant appealed against those decisions and the Belgian Conseil … Read More

Principles:

When deciding whether an “internal armed conflict” existed within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, an autonomous interpretation was required, independent of the meaning of that concept in the Geneva Conventions.

The usual meaning of that phrase in everyday language was to be considered, account being taken of the context in which it occurred and the purposes of the rules of which it was part. The usual meaning of the phrase in everyday language concerned a situation in which a state’s armed forces confronted one or more armed groups, or in which two or more armed groups confronted each other.

The existence of an internal armed conflict was a cause for granting subsidiary protection only where such confrontations were exceptionally considered to create a serious and individual threat to the life or person of an applicant for subsidiary protection for the purposes of Article 15(c).

Go Back

MM v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


MM
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:Case C-277/11
Nature of Proceedings:Judgment of the ECJ on a preliminary reference from the Irish High Court (Hogan J) pursuant to Article 267 TFEU
Judgment Date/s:22 Nov 2012
Judge:ECJ
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Rwanda
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=130241&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1029079
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts The ECJ gave judgment on a preliminary reference by the High Court in the context of judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of the Minister refusing the applicant’s application for subsidiary protection. In essence, the question referred by the High Court was: does the requirement to cooperate with the applicant for subsidiary protection, following a refusal to grant refugee … Read More

Principles:

The requirement on a Member State to cooperate with an applicant per Article 4(1), second sentence, cannot be interpreted to mean that, where a foreign national requests subsidiary protection status after he has been refused refugee status and the competent national authority is minded to reject that second application as well, the authority is obliged – before adopting its decision – to inform the applicant that it proposes to reject his application and notify him of the arguments on which it intends to base its rejection, so as to enable him to make his views known.

However, in the case of a system where there are two separate procedures, one after the other, for examining applications for refugee status and applications for subsidiary protection, it is for the national court to ensure the applicant’s fundamental rights are observed in each of these procedures, particularly the right to be heard in the sense that the applicant must be able to make his views known before any decision is adopted that does not grant the protection requested. The fact that the applicant has already been duly heard when his application for refugee status was examined does not mean that that procedural requirement may be dispensed with in the procedure relating to the application for subsidiary protection.

Go Back

Joined cases C-411/10 NS and C-493/10 ME

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Secretary of State for the Home Department et al
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2011] ECR I-0000
Judgment Date/s:21 Dec 2011
Judge:Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Asylum (Application for), Asylum Seeker (Secondary Movement of), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Country of Origin (Safe), Dublin Regulation, Refugee, Transfer Order
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=117187&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=216473
Geographic Focus:Europe

In Case C-411/10 N.S., the applicant, an Afghan national, came to the UK after travelling through, inter alia, Greece. He did not apply for asylum in Greece, and he claimed that the Greek authorities detained him, gave him an order to leave Greece, and subsequently arrested him and expelled him to Turkey, from where he travelled to the UK. The … Read More

Principles:

A Member State exercising its discretionary power under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation must be considered as implementing EU law within the meaning of Article 6 TEU and Article 51(1) of the Charter. Presumptions that Member States comply with the Charter, Geneva Convention, and ECHR must be regarded as rebuttable. Member State may not transfer an asylum seeker under the Dublin Regulation where it cannot be unaware that systematic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in a receiving Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter.

Subject to Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, where a Member State finds that it is impossible to transfer an applicant to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation, the Member State must continue to examine the criteria in Chapter III of the Regulation in order to establish whether one of the following criteria enables another Member State to be identified as responsible for the examination of the asylum application.

The Member State in which an applicant is present must ensure that it does not worsen a situation where an applicant’s fundamental rights have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. If necessary, the Member State where the applicant is present must examine the application under Article 3(2) of the Regulation. Information such as that cited by the EctHR, re relevant risks to which asylum seekers would be exposed, enables Member States to assess the functioning of the Member States’ asylum systems, making it possible to evaluate risks.

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

Izevbekhai and Ors v Ireland

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Ireland
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:Application No. 43408/08
Nature of Proceedings:Admissibility
Judgment Date/s:17 May 2011
Judge:Fifth Section
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-105081#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-105081%22]}
Geographic Focus:Europe
References:Izevbekhai and Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors [2010] IESC 44; E.P.I. and Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 23; Izevbekhai and Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors, 10 November 2006

The Applicants were a mother and two daughters who arrived in Ireland in January 2005. Mrs. Izevbekhai applied for declarations of refugee status on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughters. The basis of her claim for refugee status was that she was in fear for her own life and the lives of her daughters if they were … Read More

Principles:

Ms Izevbekhai and her husband could protect their daughters from female genital mutilation if returned to Nigeria.

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

Case C-34/09 – Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office National de l’Emploi

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Office National de l’Emploi
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:Case C-34/09
Judgment Date/s:08 Mar 2011
Judge:Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:Citizenship, EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Citizenship, EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Third-Country National
Country of Origin:Columbia
URL:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:62009CJ0034
Geographic Focus:Europe

Mr Ruiz Zambrano and his wife, both Columbian nationals, applied for asylum in Belgium due to the civil war in Columbia. The Belgian authorities refused to grant them refugee status and ordered them to leave Belgium. The couple continued to reside in Belgium while waiting for their applications to have their residence situation regularised. Mr Ruiz Zambrano’s wife gave birth … Read More

Principles:

Article 20 TFEU precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children, and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.

Go Back

Case C-127/08 – Metock and Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:ECJ, High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Judgment Date/s:14 Mar 2008
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Family Formation, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?oqp=&for=&mat=or&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-127%252F08&page=1&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=13036373

The Irish legislation transposing Directive 2004/38/EC provided that a national of a third-country who is a family member of a Union citizen may reside with or join that citizen in Ireland only if he is already lawfully resident in another Member State. In each of the cases a third-country national arrived in Ireland and applied unsuccessfully for asylum but while … Read More

Principles:The right of a national of a non-EU citizen who is a family member of a union citizen to accompany or join that citizen cannot be made conditional on prior lawful residence in another Member State. In the case of spouses - it does not matter when or where the marriage took place or how the non-EU national spouse entered the host Member State. The Directive does not require that the EU citizen to have already founded a family at the time when he moves. It makes no difference whether the family members of an EU citizen enter the host Member State before or after becoming family members of the citizen.
Go Back

Case C-1/05 – Jia v Migrationsverket

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Migrationsverket
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2007] ECR I-1
Judgment Date/s:19 Jan 2007
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:China
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=C%3B1%3B5%3BRP%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BC2005%2F0001%2FJ&oqp=&for=&mat=or&lgrec=en&jge=&td=%3BALL&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-1%252F05&dates=&pcs=Oor&lg=&pro=&nat=or&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&language=en&avg=&cid=13036138
Geographic Focus:Europe

Ms Jia, a Chinese national, was granted a visitor’s visa for entry into the Schengen states for a visit of a maximum of 90 days. She entered the Schengen states via a Swedish airport, and subsequently applied to the Swedish authorities for a residence permit, on the basis that she was related to a national of a Member State. The … Read More

Principles:Community law does not require Member States to make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member State, who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the condition that those family members have previously been residing lawfully in another Member State.
Go Back

Case C-133/06 Parliament v Council

Respondent/Defendant:Council
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-133/06
Judgment Date/s:16 Feb 2005
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Refugee, Third Country (Safe)
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62006CJ0133&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre=
Geographic Focus:Europe
References:Directive 2005/85/EC

Directive 2005/85/EC states that the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, after consultation of the European Parliament, is to adopt a “minimum common list of third countries” (Article 29(1) and (2)) which are to be regarded by Member States as safe countries of origin and a “common list of European safe third countries” (Article 36(3)). The European Parliament brought … Read More

Principles:

By making the future adoption of common lists of safe countries subject to mere consultation of the Parliament instead of the codecision procedure, the Council exceeded the powers conferred on it by the Treaty in relation to asylum. Articles 29(1) and (2) and Article 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC are annulled.

Go Back

Case C-200/02 – Zhu & Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent/Defendant:Secretary of State for the Home Department
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2004] ECR I-9925
Judgment Date/s:19 Oct 2004
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Child, EU Treaty Rights, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit
Country of Origin:China
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=49231&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=216473

Ms Chen, a Chinese national travelled to Belfast in order to give birth to her daughter Catherine on the island of Ireland (i.e. in Northern Ireland or the Republic). The child was immediately registered as an Irish citizen as provided for under the Irish Constitution as it then stood. The family wished to reside in the UK but was refused … Read More

Principles:

A Member State cannot deny residency to the mother of a child with citizenship in that Member State as to do so would be contrary to that child’s interests and contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Go Back

Case C-109/01 – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich

Respondent/Defendant:Hacene Akrich
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-109/01
Judgment Date/s:23 Sep 2003
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Morroco
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=48613&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=216473
Geographic Focus:Europe

Mr Akrich, a Moroccan citizen, was deported from the UK. He returned there illegally and married a British citizen while unlawfully in the State. He applied for leave to remain, but was refused and deported to Ireland, where his spouse was established. His spouse subsequently took up a position in the UK, and Mr Akrich applied to the UK for … Read More

Principles:

A national of a non-EU state married to an EU citizen may reside in the citizen’s state of origin where the citizen, after making use of their right to freedom of movement, returns to their home country with their spouse in order to work, provided that the spouse has lawfully resided in another Member State.

Go Back