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 Rana’s was revoked for entering into a marriage of … Read More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criteria, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to reassess a question of gravity where a previous permission had been revoked for reasons relating to a marriage of convenience.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

T.R.I. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend LB) v the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 96
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2024
Judge:Bolger, Marguerite
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Citizenship, Naturalisation, Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Residence Permit
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/36d60b60-b600-4311-a7bd-9108eb22ffb7/2024_IEHC_96.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:AJK v The Minister for Defence [2020]

Facts: The applicant was a child who was born in Ireland and whose mother held subsidiary protection status in the State. The child’s mother applied for an Irish passport for the child relying on section 6A(2)(d)(i) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. Section 6A(1) of the 1956 Act provides that a person who was born in Ireland shall … Read More

Principles:The period of residence of subsidiary protection holders is temporally restricted. The children of subsidiary protection holders therefore cannot rely on s. 6A (2)(d)(i), Irish Citizenship and Nationality Act 1956 to apply for citizenship.
Go Back

Yeasin v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


Yeasin v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 821
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:13 Dec 2021
Judge:Meenan C.
Category:Employment, Immigration law
Keywords:Employment, Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Employment of LEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Illegal Stay, Non-EU National, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:People’s Republic of Bangladesh
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ce8bc5de-715b-467d-8727-572767e3c75a/2021_IEHC_821.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, entered the State on the basis of a student permission. This permission remained valid until the applicant was granted a residence card as a qualifying family member of his EU citizen spouse. The marriage subsequently broke down and the spouse returned to their EU country of origin. The applicant wrote to the Minister … Read More

Principles:The Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation has discretion to issue an employment permit where the person does not hold a current immigration permission to be in the State.
Go Back

P v the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


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

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

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

AB v Road Safety Authority

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Road Safety Authority
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 217
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 Mar 2021
Judge:Creedon E
Category:International protection, Residence
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Discrimination (Indirect), Residence Document, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:India
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a6f51761-a591-46b8-8d2c-299e8fb6f7df/2021_IEHC_217.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: AB applied for international protection in Ireland in 2015. AB lived in Munster and worked in Co. Dublin. AB was unable to move to Dublin due to a lack of direct provision accommodation in that area. AB held a Temporary Residence Certificate (TRC) under s. 16(1) of the International Protection Act 2015, which allowed her to remain in the … Read More

Principles:A person who is present in the State as an applicant for international protection is not “normally resident” in the State for the purposes of an application for a learner driver’s permit. The refusal of the permit on this basis did not constitute discrimination on grounds of race.
Go Back

Hossain v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


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

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

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

Luximon v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 382
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Protection (International), Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8fa3faf7-d874-4a36-914c-4354fad01088/2016_IECA_382_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Mauritian citizen who came to Ireland in July 2006 on an student permission. This permission was renewed  from time to time until June 2012. In October 2012 she applied for a change of status to regularise her position in the State, which would effectively allow her continue to reside in Ireland without the requirement that … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

Go Back

Balchand v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 383
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e23dd69e-8b80-4b5e-955e-6b6522fde01e/2016_IECA_383_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The first named applicant was a Mauritian national who arrived in the State on the 7 December 2006 and was granted an immigration permission on student conditions (generally referred to as “stamp 2” conditions or permission). He married the second named applicant, who was also a Mauritian national, and shortly thereafter she also arrived in the State and was … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

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

Sulaimon (A Minor) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2012] IESC 63
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Dec 2012
Judge:O’Donnell J, (with whom Denham CJ, Murray J, and Fennelly J agreed), Hardiman J (with whom Murray J agreed)
Category:Citizenship, Residence
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Ius soli, Minor, Residence, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Ireland / Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a41f4f56-6aeb-49fc-a940-6de892297b03/2012_IESC_63_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a minor and his father applied for an Irish passport on his behalf. This application was made pursuant to Section 6A of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) which provides that: “A person born in the island of Ireland shall not be entitled to be an Irish citizen unless a parent of that … Read More

Principles:

The Immigration Act 2004 clearly contemplated that at least two permissions may be given under the Act, one by the Minister and another granted by an immigration officer on behalf of the Minister.

The word “permission” in Section 5 did not have a special meaning derived from Section 4 but was used in a more general and ordinary sense. A ministerial permission shall be of the same nature as the permission granted under Section 4 by an immigration officer. 

The Immigration Act 2004, properly construed, recognised that the Minister may grant permission.  The Act does not provide any details about the grant of a ministerial permission and does not set out any procedure for an application for such permission or prescribe any particular formality for such permission or the manner in which it is to be approached.

The structure of the Act conceived that a permission  was separate and distinct from the requirement to register under Section 9 of the Act. Such registration is required of all non-nationals who have already been granted permission to be in the State.  

Go Back

ZMH (Somalia) v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 221
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 May 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Entry (Refusal of), Family Member, Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee, Residence, Residence Permit, Visa
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/68931e53-7755-41de-8c24-597e72be0d88/2012_IEHC_221_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Somalia and declared a refugee in 2008. She applied for family reunification for her husband, two sons and her elderly mother, who were said to be nationals of Somalia but all living in Ethiopia. The Minister requested the applicant to produce Somali passports or identity documents for her family members. This was for … Read More

Principles:

Where the Minister has not refused to exercise his public function, the Court could not grant a mandatory order compelling him to do so.

Given the requirements of Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 and the consequence for the State’s international obligations in issuing authorisations for international travel, the Minister is both entitled and obliged to satisfy himself that authorisations for family reunification and travel visas issued for that purpose are validly issued to persons who have the genuine family relationship claimed and that their identities have been authentically established.

Although considerable doubt surrounds the authenticity of Somali identity documents, it is not unreasonable or irrational for the Minister to insist on the presentation of such a passport, as Somali passports are not rejected outright but only as the sole means of establishing identity. The degree of weight to be attributed to a passport ultimately would depend on the cumulative effect of other proofs and information offered, including DNA tests, if relevant.

Go Back

O’Leary v Minister for Justice

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 Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Feb 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Residence
Keywords:Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Residence, Residence Permit
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a5d3f6ab-fcd4-4a74-a1d9-a38b890d88f8/2012_IEHC_80_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The elderly South African parents of Mrs O’Leary, a naturalised Irish citizen, wanted to live with their daughter and her family in the State. Mrs O’Leary’s parents had often visited their family in Ireland, and her mother had looked after the grandchildren during the summer months every year since 1996. The applicants claimed that Mrs O’Leary’s parents were dependent … Read More

Principles:

Contested immigration decisions where the immigrant has Irish family may, as in this case, fall to be assessed for their legality from the perspective of the Irish citizens.
 
In immigration-related administrative decision making, decision maker should seek to given an overall assessment of the merits of an application, rather than seek and articulate grounds to support a refusal.

S. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 gives the Minister power to extend any permission to be in the State to a non Irish national and to prescribe conditions as regards duration which justly and reasonably meets the exigencies of a case.

Consideration of an applicant’s request under s. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 cannot isolate the financial aspect of a case, lest it be unbalanced.

Go Back

AMS (Somalia) v Minister for Justice and Equality; AK (Afghanistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin


AMS (Somalia)
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 72
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Feb 2012
Judge:Cross J.
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Dependant, Entry (Refusal of), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Somalia Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/0728a8d8-adb0-461d-8e04-8282437f77a0/2012_IEHC_72_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant was a national of Somalia and was recognised as a refugee in the State in 2009. He applied to the Minister under Sections 18(3) and (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 for family reunification with his wife, mother and four minor siblings. All had been living in a refugee camp outside Mogadishu and, at the time … Read More

Principles:

For the purposes of family reunification part of the investigation of the family includes an assessment of the domestic circumstances of the dependent family member, not the refugee. 

The Minister’s decision must, per the Supreme Court decision in Meadows v Minister for Justice, disclose at least the essential rationale on foot of which the decision is taken. 

In exercising his discretion to grant permission to dependent family members to enter and reside in the State there must be a separate consideration by the Minister of the refugee and the different dependent family members and their individual personal circumstances. The Minister must carry out a balancing exercise in assessing the proportionality of his decision upon a refugee’s ECHR rights.

If the Minister had a fixed policy  as to family reunification of dependent family members of refugees he should state it so that it could be examined as being reasonable.

Section 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 did not contemplate a “sponsorship” requirement and any such requirement would require a legislative amendment.

Go Back

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

adminLeave a Comment

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

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

Principles:

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

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

Go Back

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

emnadmin

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

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

Principles:

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

Go Back

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

adminLeave a Comment

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

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

Principles:

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

Go Back

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

Zada and Sirkovskaja v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochana

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 341
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:01 Oct 2010
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Non-EU National, Residence Document, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Iran and Estonia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/777cd4d8-cf5d-4a80-963e-7a7e57de17ea/2010_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Applicants were a married couple: Mr Zada was an Iranian national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Ireland; Ms Sirkovskaja was an Estonian national in full time employment. The Applicants married in February 2007 and Mr Zada applied for a residence card under Article 9 of Directive 2004/38/EC as a family member and spouse of a Union citizen. … Read More

Principles:The Minister is entitled to refuse a residence card to an Applicant unless and until he produces a valid passport.
Go Back

Decsi and Zhao v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Levalda and Syed 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:[2010] IEHC 342
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2010
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence Document, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Hungary and China; Pakistan and Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/072a4882-7cde-41aa-9e04-4679644866e7/2010_IEHC_342_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Mr Decsi, a Hungarian citizen married Ms Zhao, a Chinese national, in March 2010. Ms Zhao applied to the Minister under the EC (Freedom of Movement) (No. 2) Regulations 2008 for the issue of a residence card. Ms Levalda, a Latvian national married Mr, Syed, a Pakistanti national that same month and made a similar application. Both cases related to … Read More

Principles:The right of the family members of Union citizens to reside in the State and their entitlement to take up employment are exercisable as and from the date of the receipt of the acknowledgment notice issued by the Minister pursuant to Regulation 7(1)(c) of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2008.
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