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

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

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

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

Saleem and Spryszynska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 49
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Feb 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National, Residence Document, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Poland and Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fa0c6b3c-806d-4cc0-8140-d0c32394ddf0/2011_IEHC_49_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland
References:Lamasz and Gunduz v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011] IEHC 50

Mr Saleem was a national of Pakistan present in Ireland on a student visa. Ms Spryszynska was a Polish national working in Ireland. The Applicants met while both working in a McDonald’s restaurant and married in Naas in December 2008. That same month Mr Saleem made an application for a Residence Card pursuant to Regulation 7 of the European Communities … Read More

Principles:The Minister is entitled, without infringing Union law or applying the Regulations inconsistently with the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC, to carry out reasonable checks in order to satisfy himself that the basic conditions of Regulations 6 and 7 are met in the case of the Union citizen and family member and that documentation submitted by way of proofs under Schedule 2 is authentic, provided that these checks do not involve or amount to the imposition of additional administrative obstacles or preconditions to the exercise of the Union citizen’s right to residence and to be joined or accompanied by a family member.
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

SK & Anor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2007] IEHC 216, Unreported
Judgment Date/s:28 May 2007
Judge:Hanna
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Residence Permit, Union Citizen
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ae840163-3561-4b34-9196-23fed13550f4/2007_IEHC_216_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

The first-named applicant applied for asylum on arrival in Ireland. He subsequently married the second-named applicant, an Estonian national. The first-named applicant had made a previous application for asylum in Belgium and a transfer order pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 was made to remove him to Belgium. The applicants requested that the first-named applicant be granted residency on … Read More

Principles:

An applicant’s dishonesty should weigh in the balance in considering rights at issue in an application for residency in the context of EU Treaty rights. Directive 2004/38/EC is intended to apply to families that were established in a Member State prior to moving to a host Member State.

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-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