Asylum law test case rejected

the italian irish person will also be able to say they have rights under the EU treaties such as artilce 17 and 8 and thrity something which expressed freedom of workers,services etc, so their rights don't fall just under the directive but more importantly, under the treaty.

Thank you walrusgumble for the clarification

My main point was that this Judges decision and his explanation
seemed seriously flawed on a number of points, it is a cause
for concern
Starting with the accepted definition of reverse discrimination
in the context of EU and Irish law.

Now, I read >here< that the Dept of Justice settled this case for this family
last year, So why is this back in court, has the Dept of Justice double crossed
this poor family, and want to torture them more.

acme4242 wrote:

the italian irish person will also be able to say they have rights under the EU treaties such as artilce 17 and 8 and thrity something which expressed freedom of workers,services etc, so their rights don't fall just under the directive but more importantly, under the treaty.

Thank you walrusgumble for the clarification

My main point was that this Judges decision and his explanation
seemed seriously flawed on a number of points, it is a cause
for concern
Starting with the accepted definition of reverse discrimination
in the context of EU and Irish law.

Now, I read >here< that the Dept of Justice settled this case for this family
last year, So why is this back in court, has the Dept of Justice double crossed
this poor family, and want to torture them more.

i haven't got to look at the judgement, maybe it was an application by the moylans to seek their full costs of bringing the action. (normally costs follow, and loser pays the other's legal costs) this is a guess