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 Rana’s was revoked for entering into a marriage of … Read More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criteria, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to reassess a question of gravity where a previous permission had been revoked for reasons relating to a marriage of convenience.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

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

Gorry, Ford and ABM v Minister for Justice

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 280, 281 and 282
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review / Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Oct 2017
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Immigration, Non-EU National, Residence, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c53548e-e3f1-46bd-9973-8b3f13d31f52/2017_IECA_280_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In each of these cases, one of the applicants was an Irish citizen and was married to the other applicant who is a foreign national. The marriages in question either took place in Ireland or Nigeria, and all three were recognised by the Minister as lawful marriages. Each application for judicial review sought an order of certiorari of an … Read More

Principles:

The Minister did not consider the constitutional rights of the applicants in accordance with law, in particular

  1. the guarantee given by the State in Art.41.1.2° to protect the family in its constitution and authority;
  2. a recognition that the applicants in each case were a family, a fundamental unit group of society possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights which rights included a right to cohabit which was also an individual right of the citizen spouse which the State must, as far as practicable, defend and vindicate (Art.41.1 and Art.40.3.1°);
  3. a recognition that the decision that the family should live in Ireland was a decision which they had the right to take and which the State had guaranteed in Art.41.1 to protect; and
  4. a recognition of the right of the Irish citizen to live at all times in Ireland as part of what Art.2 refers to as the “birth right . . . to be part of the Irish Nation” and the absence of any right of the State (absent international obligations which do not apply) to limit that right.

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

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

Bakare v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 292
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Oct 2016
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Family Life (Right to), Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/be94c6e9-50fc-42ee-902d-0c3d2a1b9fe1/2016_IECA_292_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In Bakare v Minister for Justice the Court of Appeal considered the applicability of the Zambrano case in situations where it is proposed to deport only one parent of an Irish citizen child. The applicant was a Nigerian citizen who arrived in the State in February 2002 when he applied for asylum on grounds of his ethnicity and his … Read More

Principles:

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Bakare confirmed that Zambrano is only applicable in cases where the denial of residency or similar rights to one or both third country nationals who are the parents of EU citizen children is likely to bring about a situation where those children are in practice compelled to leave the territory of the Union. The rule in Zambrano does not apply to decisions to deport one parent of an Irish citizen child where the other parent is residing in Ireland and there is no appreciable risk that the deportation of one parent will force the child to leave.

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

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

Scully v Minister for Justice and Equality


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

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

Principles:

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

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

Go Back

AO v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:17 January 2012, 2012 IEHC, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Application for a stay on the implementation of a deportation order pending the determination of an application for leave for judicial review.
Judgment Date/s:17 Jan 2012
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bf3ea1b6-e98f-447c-a9c1-4eecdc63deea/2012_IEHC_8_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Applicant sought a stay on the implementation of his deportation order.  The Court had vacated an earlier interim injunction that the Court had granted after it transpired that the Applicant had failed to disclose a material fact, (i.e., that he had already applied, unsuccessfully, to the High Court for injunction). The Applicant presented himself to immigration officials as Mr … Read More

Principles:
  1. Where the non Irish national parent of an Irish child seeks an injunction restraining his or her deportation, the Court cannot not look at the matter from the point of view of the non national parent, but must look at it from the perspective of the child.
  2. Article 41.2 of the Constitution of Ireland implies that all children, irrespective of the marital status of their parents, have the same equal rights to that which the Constitution postulates as representing the fundamental rights of children in a family setting,
  3. Non marital Irish children must be deemed to have an unenumerated personal right by virtue of Article 40.3.1 to have the same rights as children whose parents are married.
  4. Non marital Irish children have a right to the care and company of their parents.
Go Back

Troci v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported High Court (Hogan J) 2nd November 2011 2011 IEHC 405
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2cb16ab5-b669-4336-a856-160050889e46/2011_IEHC_405_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, Ervis Troci, an Albanian national, was arrested pursuant to s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999. He had sought asylum, and his application had been rejected and he subsequently sought to remain in the State for humanitarian reasons. While in the State, the … Read More

Principles:The suspicion on the part of an immigration officer or member of the Garda Siochana underpinning the arrest of a person against whom a deportation order is in force under s. 5(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 1999, must refer to some overt act or deed, including statements, on the part of the arrested person, or some external piece of intelligence which suggests that there is a risk that such a person will seek to evade deportation.
Go Back

BJSA (Sierra Leone) 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:12 October 2011, 2011 IEHC 381, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Hearing re an interlocutory injunction pending a determination of leave to seek judicial review.
Judgment Date/s:12 Oct 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal Order, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Sierra Leone
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9b80483a-8d32-45b8-b7eb-39fb194500bd/2011_IEHC_381_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

In this case the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation pending the determination of an application for leave for judicial review of, inter alia, a decision refusing to grant him subsidiary protection on, essentially, two grounds: that the decision was invalid because the procedure in place under the Irish Regulations failed to properly transpose Article 4.1 of Directive 2004/83 … Read More

Principles:
  1. There is no deficiency in the Irish asylum legislative regime in respect of the failure to expressly transpose the provision in Article 4.2 of Directive 2004/38 re cooperation into Irish legislation.
  2. The co-operative nature of the first instance assessment phase in the Irish asylum process is reflected in ss. 8(1); 11(1); 11(2); 11C; and 16(6) of the Refugee Act 1996 as amended. 
  3. The deciding authority is not wholly relieved of any obligation of co-operation in appropriate cases. The process must conform to the normal rules of fair procedures.
  4. There is no requirement that a draft subsidiary protection decision be submitted to an applicant for comment before it is adopted.
  5. The right to an effective remedy by way of an appeal under Article 39 of the Directive 2005/85 applies only to subsidiary protection if it forms part of a unified procedure.
  6. There is no superior remedy in Irish law by way of appeal against a first instance determination of an asylum application, such that the procedures under the Refugee Act 1996 do not constitute a comparator with subsidiary protection for the purpose of applying the EU principle of equivalence.
  7. It is only since the requirements of Directive 2005/85 and, in particular, Annex 1, became effective in Irish law that the Commissioner is a “determining authority”, and that there is a right of appeal against a determination of the Commissioner to the Tribunal. Insofar as the provisions of the 1996 Act provide a two-stage determination for an asylum application including a right to an effective remedy by way of an appeal, this is only because of the manner in which the State adapted the arrangements of the 1996 Act in order to comply with the requirements of Directive 2005/85.
Go Back

SL v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2011 IEHC 370, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:06 Oct 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Determining Asylum Authority, Protection (Application for International), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee, Union Citizen
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/ef6ab8d82cb1ce3d80257935003a8a7c
Geographic Focus:Ireland

On 14 March 2011, the High Court had granted the applicant leave to seek to judicial review in respect of his claim that the procedures in place under the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006), which implement in Irish law Directive 2004/83/EC, contain a structural flaw. The applicant, who had applied for subsidiary protection, … Read More

Principles:
  1. Directive 2005/85/EC applies only to asylum, except where a Member State avails of Article 3.4 of that Directive, and Ireland has not taken that course, and does not have a single combined procedure for asylum and subsidiary protection.
  2. In the alternative, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform is the ‘determining authority’ re subsidiary protection in light of Regulation 4 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006).
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

Lamasz and Gurbuz 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 50
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Feb 2011
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Non-EU National, Residence Document, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Poland and Turkey
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/31a5ff6d-c853-4f64-aad9-3fc760663baf/2011_IEHC_50_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Ms Lamasz was a Polish national working in Ireland in a Turkish restaurant. Mr Gurbuz was a Turkish national. The Applicants met in Limerick in 2006 and became engaged in 2008. They were married in Clonmel in 2009. In April 2009 Mr Gurbuz made an application for a Residence Card pursuant to Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Free Movement … Read More

Principles:In an application for a Residence Card where evidence of employment had been submitted, it was not a valid ground for rejection that officials had merely been ‘unable to make contact’ with the employers in question
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