Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Sangeeta Rana, Lehrasib Ali
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2024] IESC 46
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:18 Oct 2024
Judge:O’Malley, I., Dunne, E, Hogan, G., Collins, M., Donnelly A.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Free Movement, Good character, Regularisation, Residence Permit, Student, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:India, Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c4be3d7-0c16-4132-bbcc-d5aa817f2816/2024_IESC_46.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: Ms Rana and Mr Ali were in Ireland on student permissions. Upon their expiration, they each entered into what were later held to be marriages of convenience with EU citizens. They both held residence permissions in the State as spouses of EU citizens. Their permissions were both respectively revoked. Ms. Rana’s was revoked for entering into a marriage of … Read More

Principles:When assessing applications under the Special Scheme for Students and the good character and conduct criteria, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to reassess a question of gravity where a previous permission had been revoked for reasons relating to a marriage of convenience. In giving reasons, it is sufficient for a decision-maker to state that they have considered all the material before them, unless there is some evidence-based reasons for thinking otherwise.
Go Back

H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality

admin


H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IEHC 360, [2021] IESC 0032
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:11 May 2021
Judge:Charleton P.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Member, Free Movement, Illegal Stay, Minor, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/890a1003-8ef2-425c-935a-40d96c3b1c33/c6bf103b-a935-4894-b4d8-b9b773ba936f/2021_IESC_32.pdf/pdf

Facts: MIH and her daughter, SIH, are Pakistani nationals. They arrived in Ireland in 2014 with MIH’s brother, a British citizen and applied for EU1 Residence Cards. These applications were refused. At that time, the Minister issued notifications proposing to deport the applicants pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. However, it was not until 18 … Read More

Principles:Delay in issuing a deportation order, in and of itself, cannot create rights to remain in the State where otherwise non-nationals have no entitlement to residence.
Go Back

MKFS v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 48
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:24 Jul 2020
Judge:McKechnie W
Category:Immigration
Keywords:Family Member, Free Movement, Marriage of Convenience
Country of Origin:Pakistan, Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62731429-025f-485f-95c7-8ceb67c95d52/2020_IESC_48(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Pakistani national who entered the State on 12th June 2009 on a visit visa. On 12th February 2000 he married a Latvian national who was resident in the State and exercising her EU Treaty Rights. On 27th April 2010 the applicant applied for a residence card under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. … Read More

Principles:The Minister for Justice is entitled in the course of the deportation decision-making process to rely on an earlier, unchallenged finding that a marriage is one of convenience. However, he must nonetheless have regard, in operating that process, to the Article 8 rights of the applicants as founded on the underlying relationship between the parties.
Go Back

Muhammad Uzair Pervaiz v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadminLeave a Comment


Muhammad Uzair Pervaiz v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 27
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Jun 2020
Judge:Baker M
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Family Member, Free Movement, Third-Country National
Country of Origin:Spain and non-EU (not specified)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/27a54a3d-420a-4c3f-a9a4-a87369f81de5/2020_IESC_27(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts This appeal was primarily concerned with how the Minister was to approach an application by a third country national to be treated as a permitted family member by reason of being in a durable relationship with a Union citizen. Mr Pervaiz claimed to be in a committed relationship with a Spanish national who was exercising her EU Treaty Rights … Read More

Principles:The Citizens Directive was correctly transposed into Irish law in relation to the determination of applications by “permitted family members” of EU citizens. There was no requirement to provide detailed criteria in the legislation as to what constitutes a durable relationship duly attested.
Go Back

Subhan v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


Subhan v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2019] IECA 330
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2019
Judge:Baker M
Category:Citizenship, Immigration law Free movement
Keywords:Dependant, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National
Country of Origin:United Kingdom, Pakistan.
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/19bc7313-7173-491a-b089-d476d2391f77/2019_IECA_330_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts The applicants were both born in Pakistan and were first cousins. The first applicant became a naturalised British citizen and subsequently moved to the State in exercise of his EU Treaty Rights. He applied for permission for his first cousin to join him in the State as a permitted family member on the basis that he was a member … Read More

Principles:A person who cohabits or lives under the same roof as a Union citizen is not, merely by reason of that cohabitation, to be considered a member of the Union citizen’s household. The key task of the decision maker was to ascertain whether the cohabitation or co-living arrangements are more than merely convenient, and whether the non-Union citizen family member is part of a cohesive, long term, coherent and single unit which might generally be called a “household”.
Go Back

VK v Minister for Justice; Khan v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


VK v Minister for Justice; Khan v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2019] IECA 232
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2019
Judge:Baker M
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Dependant, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National
Country of Origin:Germany, Egypt, United Kingdom, Pakistan.
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/eff2dccb-f5cd-42a0-8e62-acccffa895b6/2019_IECA_232_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The VK case involved a German citizen who was married to an Egyptian citizen. They resided in the State under EU Treaty Rights and submitted an application to allow the wife’s Egyptian parents and sisters join them in the State as qualifying family members who were dependent on them. In the Khan case, the applicants were UK citizens who … Read More

Principles:The test for dependence is one of EU law and an applicant must show, in the light of his financial and social conditions, a real and not temporary dependence on a Union citizen. The concept of dependence is to be interpreted broadly and in the light of the perceived benefit of family unity and the principles of freedom of movement.
Go Back

SS v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


SS v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2019] IESC 37
Nature of Proceedings:Habeas corpus/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 May 2019
Judge:Charleton P
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Dependant, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National
Country of Origin:Romania, Pakistan.
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/57e4e25a-b338-4d52-a000-096d20f15854/2019_IESC_37_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts On 30 January 2018 the applicant/appellant sought a residence card, claiming to be a qualifying family member dependent on the alleged spouse of his father, she being an EU citizen. The applicant was a 26 year old Pakistani national who claimed to be a family member of the Romanian lady whom his father had purported to marry in November … Read More

Principles:Under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2005, an applicant for a residence card as a qualifying family member of an EU citizen has a right to remain in the State until that application is determined.
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

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

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

OA and Another v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 384
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Free Movement, Minor, Non-EU National, Residence
Country of Origin:Kenya
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/162b6ca0-95c8-4dff-a865-2bf56323fdff/2014_IEHC_384_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Kenyan national who arrived in Ireland with her infant daughter and applied unsuccessfully for asylum. Shortly after her arrival in Ireland, she met a Nigerian-born German national, and they began a relationship. She became pregnant with his child, the second named applicant, who was born in 2010 and was a German national by … Read More

Principles:

In assessing whether the primary carer of a Union citizen has sufficient resources for the purpose of establishing whether or not he or she obtains a derivative right of residence pursuant to the decision of the ECJ /CJEU in C-200/02 Chen,  the resources do not have to be extant at the time of the primary carer’s application for residence and, in particular, they can be held to exist if the primary carer can obtain them by taking up employment. It therefore follows that a grant of permission pursuant to Chen must be on the basis of stamp 4 conditions, i.e. include the right to work.

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-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

Druzinins and Druzinina v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 84
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Mar 2010
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/31aabf11-187f-43a9-9d87-3eb8575642b0/2010_IEHC_84_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe

The Applicants were a married couple, the husband Latvian, the wife Belarusian. Mr Drusinis found employment in Ireland in September 2007. His wife and stepdaughter moved to Ireland to join him in December 2008. In January 2009 Ms Druzinina applied to the Minister for a residence card under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006 … Read More

Principles:Applications for residence cards by spouses of Union citizens exercising EU Treaty rights in the State must be determined within six months. The six month time limit does not apply to reviews of such applications. If a review is sought and accepted, a temporary permission should be issued until it has been determined.
Go Back

Tagni v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 85
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Mar 2010
Judge:Edwards J
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Cameroon; Poland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2a17890a-f888-44be-85b6-96e9514c1e1a/2010_IEHC_85_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe
References:Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

The Applicant was a Cameroonian citizen and a failed asylum seeker. He married a Polish citizen in Ireland in December 2005. In February 2006 he applied for a residence card as the spouse of a Union citizen exercising EU Treaty rights. His application was made under Regulation 1612/68 but was dealt with under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) … Read More

Principles:In determining an application for a residence card by the spouse of a Union citizen exercising EU Treaty rights in the State, the Minister may seek proofs beyond those set out in Article 10 of the Citizenship Directive to verify the circumstances that are said to give rise to the right being asserted. Applications must be determined with six months but there is no fixed time limit for reviews of unsuccessful applications. Even so, a decision upon a review must be rendered within a reasonable time.
Go Back

Singh and Sledevska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 86
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Feb 2010
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:India; Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/64b08300-ea71-4b7b-8c89-4d5893cbbd05/2010_IEHC_86_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe
References:Nearing v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Mr Singh, an Indian citizen married Ms Sledevska, a Latvian citizen. In January 2009 Mr Singh applied to the Minister under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations, 2006 for a residence card as the spouse of a Union citizen exercising EU Treaty rights in the State. He provided no evidence of Ms Sledevska’s employment and his application was … Read More

Principles:In an application for residence card under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations, 2006 the Union citizen must provide direct evidence establishing the basis of her entitlement to and her exercise of the right of residence and of having moved to the State in exercise of her EU Treaty rights.
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