Zambrano - People seeking residence on basis of child

[walrusgumble]

It's here, the ECJ judgment is here. Interesting times now. A bit of an expansion/clarification from Chen.

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/f ... ff=C-34/09

[Monifé]

The ruling also means that an Irish citizen can avail of the rights enjoyed by EU law in relation to having their non-EU family members live with them in their own country. No movement to another member state needed.

[walrusgumble]

The ruling also means that an Irish citizen can avail of the rights enjoyed by EU law in relation to having their non-EU family members live with them in their own country. No movement to another member state needed.

This case dealt with Minor Children. I would wait for the McCarthy case before coming to the same conclusion

The judgment did nthing to substantially deal with adults and reverse discrimination, as proposed by the AG.

[strongbow]

This case dealt with Minor Children. I would wait for the McCarthy case before coming to the same conclusion

The judgment did nthing to substantially deal with adults and reverse discrimination, as proposed by the AG.

Do you have any weblink for the McCarthy case. I'm curious to know the background.

[walrusgumble]

This case dealt with Minor Children. I would wait for the McCarthy case before coming to the same conclusion

The judgment did nthing to substantially deal with adults and reverse discrimination, as proposed by the AG.

Do you have any weblink for the McCarthy case. I'm curious to know the background.

You should get info from here. It looks like these crowd share the same concerns as me.

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/citizenship- ... situations

[walrusgumble]

This case dealt with Minor Children. I would wait for the McCarthy case before coming to the same conclusion

The judgment did nthing to substantially deal with adults and reverse discrimination, as proposed by the AG.

Do you have any weblink for the McCarthy case. I'm curious to know the background.

You should get info from here. It looks like these crowd share the same concerns as me. Zambrano is an extensive addition to Chen. Chen was never used or could be used by adults and spouses

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/citizenship- ... situations

[walrusgumble]

This case dealt with Minor Children. I would wait for the McCarthy case before coming to the same conclusion

The judgment did nthing to substantially deal with adults and reverse discrimination, as proposed by the AG.

Do you have any weblink for the McCarthy case. I'm curious to know the background.

You should get info from here. It looks like these crowd share the same concerns as me. Zambrano is an extensive addition to Chen. Chen was never used or could be used by adults and spouses

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/citizenship- ... situations

The article also raises a valid concern that member states will now make it increasingly more difficult to issue citizenship

[Southern_Sky]

Indeed, EU gov'ts may make it more difficult to gain citizenship...

''Yet, the judgment may have unintended consequences on national migration and nationality law. By extending the scope of rights to be relied upon by Union citizens, the ECJ may have provided member states with an incentive to render it all the more difficult for individuals to gain access to European citizenship in the first place.''


...Particularly since the entire judgment relies on the child being an EU-citizen and not just EU-born.

[Obie]

Walrusgrumble, i am not surprised a single bit by your restrictive interpretation of the Zambrano ruling. You say it is an extension of Chen, and that Chen does not apply to adult.

Chen does not apply to adult, and besides why would an adult want to invoke Chen, it is unnecessary. The adult self-sufficiency carries more right to the non-EEA family members of those Union Citizen than Chen.

For example, in the UK, the spouse of a Self-Sufficient EEA national can work, as opposed to the direct ascendant of an EEA child.

If you understand the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you will understand that it prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, sex, nationality and so on. To say that rights of Union Citizenship applies to child in their memberstate of origin but not adult, will go against the core principle of the treaty.

You say this ruling will make naturalisation or acquisition of citizenship more tougher. Well if i go by you interpretation, this ruling will only apply to EEA national children. As things stands in the Union, no members state confers citizenship to a child born in any of the member state except one or both of their parents are national of the memberstate in question or has settled status. That is the toughest restriction that a memberstate can impose. Any further restriction will breach international law.

In light of your criticism of Advocate General Sharpton's opinion, and wish for it to be rejected, i cannot help noticing deep seated anger and frustration against this ruling.

Reverse discrimination cannot go on, simple as that. As a union Citizen, i expect you to be apply that you have the same rights in Ireland as a Polish who migrated there, in regards to family reunification rights.

[walrusgumble]

Walrusgrumble, i am not surprised a single bit by your restrictive interpretation of the Zambrano ruling. You say it is an extension of Chen, and that Chen does not apply to adult.

Chen does not apply to adult, and besides why would an adult want to invoke Chen, it is unnecessary. The adult self-sufficiency carries more right to the non-EEA family members of those Union Citizen than Chen.

For example, in the UK, the spouse of a Self-Sufficient EEA national can work, as opposed to the direct ascendant of an EEA child.

If you understand the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you will understand that it prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, gender, nationality and so on. To say that rights of Union Citizenship applies to child in their memberstate of origin but not adult, will go against the core principle of the treaty.

You say this ruling will make naturalisation or acquisition of citizenship more tougher. Well if i go by you interpretation, this ruling will only apply to EEA national children. As things stands in the Union, no members state confers citizenship to a child born in any of the member state except one or both of their parents are national of the memberstate in question or has settled status. That is the toughest restriction that a memberstate can impose. Any further restriction will breach international law.

Secondly, the "core principles" of the original treaty were not intended to deal with this. THe fancy aspirations did not deal nor does it deal with a mass influx of non eu people coming to Europe. It has changed, obviously to meet with different times by a court. They give serious new changes of law which should be properly addressed by legislation, and also specifically stated in the Treaty
In light of your criticism of Advocate General Sharpton's opinion, and wish for it to be rejected, i cannot help noticing deep seated anger and frustration against this ruling.

Reverse discrimination cannot go on, simple as that. As a union Citizen, i expect you to be apply that you have the same rights in Ireland as a Polish who migrated there, in regards to family reunification rights.

Of course you are not surprised, sure you never read the link? Even Southern Sky has noticed the possibility or even (the worse that could be said about what I said, a prediction)

Where is the restriction here from me? I am simply saying you should not get all your hopes up believing that Zambrano is going to help childless married couple, just yet. It may be the case that McCarthy, in the context of the more pressing issue of non eu spouses, will completely agree with Zambrano and not their AG. Zambrano will only effect a small amount of people as the member states laws are now more restrictive in who it gives citizenship too. You have more or less accepted this situation from your comments in the other thread that deals specifically with dual citizenship. You have accepted that Zambrano may be limited.

I accepted in 2005 that Chen made sense, provided member states prevented huge problems in the future (most do) and therefore I don't see too much problems in Zambrano, bar a very small groups of people (eg those recently deported for committing crimes, having little to do with child, coming to eu state 2-5 years after birth of child - check out courts.ie for the cases) We are talking specifically about minor children. I do not believe that this case will be directly applicable to people like Monifé

you will clearly see that there is no reference to reverse discrimination or the position of married couple. Its the judgment and not the opinion of the AG that counts. Speaking of AG, there is a very important counter acting AG opinion from McCarthy. , you will know that most cases, like Monife, would fall under McCarthy.

There is little that I am saying thats incorrect. All that I am saying is an observation and the problems that the Court have caused. There is confusion right now. I have backed this observation with a link from people who know what they are talking about. What have you done? If you are not capable of giving objective view point or accepting objective view point, feck off and don't bother commenting. I am not the only person who has raised these questions.

Obie the reason I refer to Chen and that Zambrano is an extension of Chen (you know this, you even have stated this in other threads) is because the person's violated rights in both cases is the minor child who is a European citizen. Neither case looks at the rights of an adult spouse and intentionally says clear of talking about it. you are unwittingly supporting my view that one should not jump to conclusions about Zambrano until McCarthy, when looking at rights of spouses as seen in eg Monife's case

You acknowledge that Chen does not apply to adults. That is correct. But, Neither does Zambrano. Monife appears to believe/hopes it does. Your correct that Chen is useless and you would be correct that Zambrano is an extension in the sense that it does away with self sufficiency etc and in facts improves Chen and is a standalone treaty right (as oppose to Directive 2004/38EC)


Chen and Zambrano are linked, they are related. You ask " why would an adult want to invoke Chen, it is unnecessary." Well, Obie, then why would any childless adult want to invoke Zambano, if its the case that you actually think Zambrano can be used in spouse cases ? Take note what Southern Sky has suggested. Will it help spouses?

The real reason why Chen is rarely invoked, as seen in caselaw is that the majority of non eu parents are not self sufficient and were, in fact, failed asylum seekers. . THe UK's position was entirely wrong. (hardly restrictive opinion from me now is it) If you meet the conditions you must be able to work and reside. How can a child be raised until 18?, now way could you be self sufficient that long


The above was an objective view point. Now to give subjective viewpoint

"and besides The adult self-sufficiency carries more right to the non-EEA family members of those Union Citizen than Chen."

THe sole reason the courts tolerated the notion that an adult could be dependent on a minor (even though that could never happen) was because evidence was shown that Mr Chen, who was working and living in China and was wealthy, could pay for the child' and Mrs Chen up keep whilst they live in England. The mother and child would not be a burden to the state.They were self sufficient. Not every tom dick and harry is ever going to meet the self sufficiency rule! Mrs Chen was deem self Sufficient and the courts were flexible and used it as justification for allowing her to stay with the EU citzen who should be allowed an opportunity to stay. In reality most people need to work or be self employed.

There is absolutely no difference /should be no difference in the persons rights if they are a worker, self sufficient, student or self employed. You are allowed to live and work, and for most part family reunification. There is no different stamp given and it all counts for the same time as PR.



"For example, in the UK, the spouse of a Self-Sufficient EEA national can work, as opposed to the direct ascendant of an EEA child."

Zambrano puts an end to that, all will be able to work


"If you understand the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you will understand that it prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, gender, nationality and so on. To say that rights of Union Citizenship applies to child in their memberstate of origin but not adult, will go against the core principle of the treaty. "


Tell that to McCarthy v UK

And this is why people have problems with the ECJ over the free movement. Not only does it show contempt for what is actually agreed by member states when signing treaties and what free movement really is meant, it has a complete in ability to remain consistent. Right now there are two separate opinions of AG's (Zambrano & McCarthy) that clearly dsicriminate, and no doubt the ECJ will avoid dealing with it, thus causing more inconsistencies.

"You say this ruling will make naturalisation or acquisition of citizenship more tougher. Well if i go by you interpretation, this ruling will only apply to EEA national children. As things stands in the Union, no members state confers citizenship to a child born in any of the member state except one or both of their parents are national of the memberstate in question or has settled status. That is the toughest restriction that a memberstate can impose. Any further restriction will breach international law. "

That is correct, and places like Belgium was the last to fall in line. I am referring to the parents. Even though they will be safe with residence on basis of child, some states will give pay back and make any excuse to refuse the parent national citizenship. there is absolutely nothing the EU can do about it! nothing! There is absolutely nothing the EU can do about say Ireland deciding to change to current rules to say 5 years instead of 3 years before birth of child. Absolutely nothing. Without the child getting EU citizenship then the parent gets nought.


"In light of your criticism of Advocate General Sharpton's opinion, and wish for it to be rejected, i cannot help noticing deep seated anger and frustration against this ruling. "

Your not able to debate without getting defensive, can you? . The criticisms are valid and have been started/raised/repeated by respected EU Law experts. Law demands consistency. This is not consistent with previous case law. There is no deep seated anger. You are unable to give an objective view as this effects you, you have some self interest in how the EU interprets freemovement. I have no problems. Don't confuse subjection with objection. Your correct, I disagree with this decision but at least I do so in the safe knowledge that even the European Commissions (the Guardians of EU Law) and a substantial population of the EU also has problems with this judgment. I wil admit, maybe the only reason for this is because we have been use to a certain interpretation for so long and this is now sprung upon the people by unelected servants on EU law. Its not democractic. But, in time, we will get use to the new interpretations.

The second reason is the type of people who are the parents, eg failed asylum seekers, deporation order evaders, people with no genuine link to the country. If the parent was LEGAL at TIME OF CHILD's BIRTH, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEMS with this decision. Anyway, this case will only effect a small few as the rules on citizenship in most countries have now changed. THe big uproar will be forgotten in a year

[walrusgumble]

Reverse discrimination cannot go on, simple as that. As a union Citizen, i expect you to be apply that you have the same rights in Ireland as a Polish who migrated there, in regards to family reunification rights.

That is not what freemovent of people is suppose to be about. You actually leave to go to another country. The citizenship notion was a huge reason why the Constitution for Europe was rejected as it implied Supernational / Federal Europe ala Amercia. The EU citizenship matter should only be cermonial when it does not apply to areas where the EU does not have contempetence, eg national immigration rules dealing with their own people. The Treaty says EU citizenship does not replace national citizenship, it suppose to supplement it. Well these cases are ignoring this.

Now, I would fully accept that Ireland should end reserve discrimination in genuine (most cases) cases, but should only be allowed to do so by its own legislation and not by dictation of Europe. Most Irish people would support it, as it effectively can affect anyone.

[ostrich]

What about the children born in Ireland post 2005 after the IBC ceased

[Morrisj]

1 You are right about the ruling only referring to minors but as you said the McCarthy can as well bring some favour to the childless married couples depends on the Judgement.

See the link below, Its clear that even the Judges are trying to backup the Irish Government for their failure because they know the implications and the damages and the cost to each applicants

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 79017.html

sorry there were some mistake regarding my previous reply to this topic apologies

[archigabe]

Here's a brief summary from Brophy solicitors also posted on their website...

[quote]MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE APPLICATION OF EU TREATY RIGHTS
LAW –ZAMBRANO V OFFICE NATIONAL DE L’EMPLOI
The European Court of Justice has today delivered a judgement - Case C-34/0 Ruiz
Zambrano v Office National De L'Emploi - which will have major implications in
respect of the right to reside for non EEA family members of Union Citizens within
the territory of their own national State. Until now, Union Citizens could only
exercise their EU Treaty Rights on moving from one to another Member State, hence
the body of law which developed became known as “Free Movement Lawâ€

[Morrisj]

Please Archagbe you should know thats only from the Brophy's Solicitor so they are liable to interpret some words in their own way the correct judgement is given at the link below


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML


However Judge John Cooke said some clarifications need to be sent to the Ecj clarifications like if the ruling applies to parents that came to the country illegally but reference should be given that although Mr Zambrano entered the country Belgium legally with a passport ,he sought asylum and was refused and the Ecj was aware of this before the ruling so i really dont know why the Court or the Goverment or the DOj is trying to make their own criterias for allowing such right?

Its an Eu law and its same like the freemovement, the only differences is that it applies to minors who cant exercise their freemovement on their own and in order for them to do this they need the company of both parents.

Therefore since its same like the Eu freemovement the memberstates should know the only ground of refusal should be on public policy ,security and health just as the freemovement.

I just dont think the Irish Goverment understands this because i see no reason why they r trying to come up with criterias which is definitely going to be made from National law/measures

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

(Article 20 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that it 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.)

So with the reference above i dont see how the Doj can manage to bring up their criterias because if they do it means they are breaching up the law again and i feel really sorry for the taxpayers because the Goverment will loose again and again so why wasting time as i said in my previous post the worse they can do is tighten up citizenship thats all

Its really a disgrace that the Irish Government has been a in breach of the Eu law long ago like that of the Metock so its clear to see the rate of beloved not even among the citizens but even from the Government bodies really a shame

[walrusgumble]

What about the children born in Ireland post 2005 after the IBC ceased

According to Section 6A of the 1956-2004 Act, (assuming neither parents are Irish themselves, with the small exceptions in Section 7) the child will only be an Irish citizen, if at least one of the parents was legally residing in Ireland for at least 3 years before the birth of the child. Legal residence does not include time as an asylum seeker or student. So if the child does not meet that critieria or that the child can not get citizenship via Irish parent / grandparent, then the child is not an Irish citizen and will not be an EU citizen. THe child will have to follow the naturalisation route like others (it will be alot easier if parent naturualises before the child turns 18. then it would only take less than 1 year to process)

Its not enough to be born in Ireland

[Southern_Sky]

Mothers seek return of deported spouses after court ruling

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 85591.html

[walrusgumble]

Please Archagbe you should know thats only from the Brophy's Solicitor so they are liable to interpret some words in their own way the correct judgement is given at the link below


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML


However Judge John Cooke said some clarifications need to be sent to the Ecj clarifications like if the ruling applies to parents that came to the country illegally but reference should be given that although Mr Zambrano entered the country Belgium legally with a passport ,he sought asylum and was refused and the Ecj was aware of this before the ruling so i really dont know why the Court or the Goverment or the DOj is trying to make their own criterias for allowing such right?

Its an Eu law and its same like the freemovement, the only differences is that it applies to minors who cant exercise their freemovement on their own and in order for them to do this they need the company of both parents.

Therefore since its same like the Eu freemovement the memberstates should know the only ground of refusal should be on public policy ,security and health just as the freemovement.

I just dont think the Irish Goverment understands this because i see no reason why they r trying to come up with criterias which is definitely going to be made from National law/measures

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

(Article 20 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that it 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.)

So with the reference above i dont see how the Doj can manage to bring up their criterias because if they do it means they are breaching up the law again and i feel really sorry for the taxpayers because the Goverment will loose again and again so why wasting time as i said in my previous post the worse they can do is tighten up citizenship thats all

Its really a disgrace that the Irish Government has been a in breach of the Eu law long ago like that of the Metock so its clear to see the rate of beloved not even among the citizens but even from the Government bodies really a shame

Please look up what the word beloved means in a dictionary. The state had absolutely no obligation in 2005 to set up the IBC scheme, after clear support via the referendum (i know it did not effect the citizens already born, but the motive for change was clear) and the supreme Court case of 2003. THe parents, then, most of them who had been here less than 2 years were allowed to stay. they could have been deported. legal Non nationals are fully protected by the laws and if their rights are breached have full recourse to the courts etc often with legal aid. So its hardly beloved. A country is entitled to enquire from the ECJ reasons for ignoring a country's rights to make immigration laws, particularily when its questionable as to whether or not ECJ even had any competence to come to the decision it did. Many EU states, France included have made it clear that they do not want a federal supranational Europe.

It was stated that the court and not the government who are making these enquiries. Isn't it better that the court are doing this than a government implenting policy now ask questions later?

The State also was follow ECJ case when they made their decisions, before Metock, the matters were not clear cut you had Akrich supporting the State and Jia supporting others. In most cases the facts of Jia were completely different to many irish applicants in that they were asylum seekers or illegals. Metock confirmed the matter there. You swear that no EU country has every breached EU law. France are pros at it so are the UK. Ireland has rarely been before the ECJ on breach of Freeemovemt of people.

Whilst I find it a tad strange because Chen made it clear that whether a parent was legal or not, the ECJ was not interested in that, so long as the child had citizenship thats all that matters. The ECJ then, were saying tough. In Chen, the mother was a complete evader from UK immigration law. Metock, in context of marriage, said status is irrelevant. But there are still contradictions from Akrich, which although I can't see been relevant here, has not gone away.


One matter which interests me though, is from looking at some of the decision in courts.ie and bearing in mind ECHR and ECJ cases of the 1980-1990's dealing with people who have committed crime, will Zambrano get already deported fathers back to Ireland where they had been convicted of a number of crimes and/or spent time in prison? What does any one else think? (I will ignore anyone who gets on their high horse, because I am not suggestions all or even many have been in trouble)

[walrusgumble]

Could one now assume that the requirement by new childless Romanians and Bulgarians for work permits to reside and work in Ireland will now cease? as failure to do so would mean giving more rights to non eu people with little or no connection with the state, bar planting a child in eu?

[Morrisj]

Could one now assume that the requirement by new childless Romanians and Bulgarians for work permits to reside and work in Ireland will now cease? as failure to do so would mean giving more rights to non eu people with little or no connection with the state, bar planting a child in eu?

so? if the Romanians and Bulgarians requirement work permit ceases? You are trying to be smart by saying non nationals will get more right than them what about the Irish that has been discriminated for long time (other eu citizen have more right than them)?what will u have to say about that?

Precise really don't understand you to be honest i think Obie was right when he said the same thing because to be honest you twist things up,tho I must acknowledge your intelligence regarding the topic but you seem like a complete opponent to this Zambrano Judgement. I was completely wrong when i thought your previous posts were fair but you know what you cant write things in a smart way because of your intelligence.

We both agreed the Judgement was for minors,so why comparing such against the Romanians and Bulgarians when you know the minors wont be able to exercise their rights on their own without their parents?

Its wholly unreasonable to bring the Romanians and Bulgarians to this topic,what ever requirement they are passing through was directly made from the Eu (they were recently added to the EU)so its left for their government to fight that chain off,so this completely has nothing to do with the Romanians and Bulgarians.

For Romanians and Bulgarians that may find this offensive,should be aware its the nitty gritty and am not trying to go against any anybody be you from kafashan America Europe Asia Africa e.t.c i.e i accept everybody irrespective of their place of origin unlike someone here that just have this cunny itch for non eu nationals unbelievable.


Don't blame the Ecj or The Ag for anything wrong,blame the member states who has partial interest for Eu treaty right application,what i mean is,each member state are not happy other eu citizens from another member state comes to their country with their non national spouse to reside thats why they want any of their national who is with their non-spouse to exercise their own eu right to by moving aswell without considering fundamental human rights in national measures and that is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

My main concern was the previous Government and the Doj,now there is good Government with Alan Shatter the new minister, there is really a hope of eliminating this REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

[Morrisj]

Could one now assume that the requirement by new childless Romanians and Bulgarians for work permits to reside and work in Ireland will now cease? as failure to do so would mean giving more rights to non eu people with little or no connection with the state, bar planting a child in eu?

so? if the Romanians and Bulgarians requirement work permit ceases? You are trying to be smart by saying non nationals will get more right than them what about the Irish that has been discriminated for long time (other eu citizen have more right than them)?what will u have to say about that?

Precise really don't understand you to be honest i think Obie was right when he said the same thing because to be honest you twist things up,tho I must acknowledge your intelligence regarding the topic but you seem like a complete opponent to this Zambrano Judgement. I was completely wrong when i thought your previous posts were fair but you know what you cant write things in a smart way because of your intelligence.

We both agreed the Judgement was for minors,so why comparing such against the Romanians and Bulgarians when you know the minors wont be able to exercise their rights on their own without their parents?

Its wholly unreasonable to bring the Romanians and Bulgarians to this topic,what ever requirement they are passing through was directly made from the Eu (they were recently added to the EU)so its left for their government to fight that chain off,so this completely has nothing to do with the Romanians and Bulgarians.

For Romanians and Bulgarians that may find this offensive,should be aware its the nitty gritty and am not trying to go against any anybody be you from kafashan America Europe Asia Africa e.t.c i.e i accept everybody irrespective of their place of origin unlike someone here that just have this cunny itch for non eu nationals unbelievable.


Don't blame the Ecj or The Ag for anything wrong,blame the member states who has partial interest for Eu treaty right application,what i mean is,each member state are not happy other eu citizens from another member state comes to their country with their non national spouse to reside thats why they want any of their national who is with their non-spouse to exercise their own eu right to by moving aswell without considering fundamental human rights in national measures and that is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

[Obie]

If i remember correctly Walrusgumble, it was not the 27 judges at the CJEU that came up with the concept of Union Citizen in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. It was the memberstates themselves that came up with it. They defined "Union Citizen" as anyone holding the nationality of a member state, as opposed to anyone who exercise rights of movement in a memberstate other than their own.

Mr & Mrs Zambrano did not win their case on any extension of the freemovement provision. Infact the judgement clearly states that they are not covered by the directive. They won, because their children are Union Citizen, and with that right comes their right under the Charter of Fundamental rights.

This is separate from the Human Rights act, and where as it was soft law prior to Lisbon treaty, it is now not the case.

If a Union Citizen is able to claim rights as Union Citizen in their state of origin, then their rights under the charter can be invoked, without them having to move to another memberstate, as was previously the case.
The charter provides for the right to family life for union citizens.

I fail to see what a huge significance McCarthy will make to this ruling.

It is crystal clear. No need for further guidance Irish Judges. Just accept the judgment, and don't create further delays and misery for Irish Citizens family.

Contrary to whatever views i might have expressed on this ruling previously, i am now of the strong belief that its scope is much wider than i initially thought, and there is little room for misunderstanding.

Any attempt by the Irish authorities to limit the scope of Zambrano, will breach the right of the Union Citizen child under Article 7 & 24(3) on the Charter of Fundamental rights.

[walrusgumble]

Could one now assume that the requirement by new childless Romanians and Bulgarians for work permits to reside and work in Ireland will now cease? as failure to do so would mean giving more rights to non eu people with little or no connection with the state, bar planting a child in eu?

so? if the Romanians and Bulgarians requirement work permit ceases? You are trying to be smart by saying non nationals will get more right than them what about the Irish that has been discriminated for long time (other eu citizen have more right than them)?what will u have to say about that?

Precise really don't understand you to be honest i think Obie was right when he said the same thing because to be honest you twist things up,tho I must acknowledge your intelligence regarding the topic but you seem like a complete opponent to this Zambrano Judgement. I was completely wrong when i thought your previous posts were fair but you know what you cant write things in a smart way because of your intelligence.

We both agreed the Judgement was for minors,so why comparing such against the Romanians and Bulgarians when you know the minors wont be able to exercise their rights on their own without their parents?

Its wholly unreasonable to bring the Romanians and Bulgarians to this topic,what ever requirement they are passing through was directly made from the Eu (they were recently added to the EU)so its left for their government to fight that chain off,so this completely has nothing to do with the Romanians and Bulgarians.

For Romanians and Bulgarians that may find this offensive,should be aware its the nitty gritty and am not trying to go against any anybody be you from kafashan America Europe Asia Africa e.t.c i.e i accept everybody irrespective of their place of origin unlike someone here that just have this cunny itch for non eu nationals unbelievable.


Don't blame the Ecj or The Ag for anything wrong,blame the member states who has partial interest for Eu treaty right application,what i mean is,each member state are not happy other eu citizens from another member state comes to their country with their non national spouse to reside thats why they want any of their national who is with their non-spouse to exercise their own eu right to by moving aswell without considering fundamental human rights in national measures and that is REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

As it stands, a Romanian national entering Ireland or the UK for the first time and wishes to reside for more than 3 months, but, can't afford to be self employed or an insured student and would rather work, has less rights than the non eu parent of a minor eu child. Ie THey will have no restriction to a work environment.

If A german/French etc national lived in Ireland for 3 years, works 2 years, marries a non EU national on the third year, he /she may have difficulties with their family reunification application. The same for those who wish to seek permanent residency but can't proove that the EU national worked for 5 full years.

There has been no talk of the Romanian /Bulgarian embargo, but it is suppose to end in 2014. But I am talking about right now, at this very minute. Hardly equitable is it?

How are Irish adults been discriminated? They have access to work, they knew the risks of the spouse being deported. THe true facts of the cases involving the deportation order fathers is that the mother has already status to stay and chooses to stay in Ireland instead of returning with their beloved husband. The child gets to stay in Ireland, as per some of the court transcripts, some of the fathers did not seem too bothered when they only came over when the mother did the deed and got status, ie 2-3 years later.

There is no twisting of the facts, read the f*cking facts of the caselaw. www.bailii.org and www.courts.ie. The stats from RAT and ORAC websites do not lie. You don't want to face the truth that is your problem. Even the ECj acknoweldges that the EU is not an open house. Point out from the facts where I am incorrect. The world and their mother knows whats going on. You now going to deny that work permits are not required at this time for Romanians coming here for the first time? You are going to deny that EU spouses are legally being refused family reunification of their adult mothers and wives as they don't meet the directive?

As for intelligence, ha, your blind. There is no attempt to be a smart mule. As of today, the position is as I have stated and you have not made an intelligent effort to rebuff the actual problems. Jesus even the highly intelligent High Court Judges wishes to return to Europe to seek clarification on how and who this case effects.

The reason for comparing adult Romanians and non eu parents of eu children (mostly, with these effected cases, from the facts of the case, failed asylum seekers & illegals) They managed to side step procedures by simply having a child, which may not have been conceived in the EU, yet genuine EU citizens eg Romanian/Bulgarians have restrictions put in front of them. Simply because there is a child involved. It ain't the child who increases the capitalist flow of labour / money, is it? But more importantly, is goes far beyond what Chen stated ie the parent should at least be self sufficient / not going to be a burden on the State. THis will not happen here. Yes there will be intitial difficulties for the parent as they won't get certain social welfare payments immeditatelty but in time they will. There are no jobs available and there won't be for a while. We have nationals leaving the country and yet the member states, despite the unaccountability and impunity of judges, will be effected. Some of the reported cases involved deported fathers who had committed crime and are highley unlikely to get work, moreover they pi*sed their away all the chances they got. Thankfully, this judgment will not be as far reaching as expected.

Ah the last bit, "ah sure I don't care as long as I am sorted" still lack of equality hence the point of raising the matter. Its rather valid.

[walrusgumble]

If i remember correctly Walrusgumble, it was not the 27 judges at the CJEU that came up with the concept of Union Citizen in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. It was the memberstates themselves that came up with it. They defined "Union Citizen" as anyone holding the nationality of a member state, as opposed to anyone who exercise rights of movement in a memberstate other than their own.

Mr & Mrs Zambrano did not win their case on any extension of the freemovement provision. Infact the judgement clearly states that they are not covered by the directive. They won, because their children are Union Citizen, and with that right comes their right under the Charter of Fundamental rights.

This is separate from the Human Rights act, and where as it was soft law prior to Lisbon treaty, it is now not the case.

If a Union Citizen is able to claim rights as Union Citizen in their state of origin, then their rights under the charter can be invoked, without them having to move to another memberstate, as was previously the case.
The charter provides for the right to family life for union citizens.

I fail to see what a huge significance McCarthy will make to this ruling.

It is crystal clear. No need for further guidance Irish Judges. Just accept the judgment, and don't create further delays and misery for Irish Citizens family.

Contrary to whatever views i might have expressed on this ruling previously, i am now of the strong belief that its scope is much wider than i initially thought, and there is little room for misunderstanding.

Any attempt by the Irish authorities to limit the scope of Zambrano, will breach the right of the Union Citizen child under Article 7 & 24(3) on the Charter of Fundamental rights.

In 1992 there were only 12 member states. Population was not as big. There was absolutely no foresight as to how big the union would get. This notion of EU Citizenship attaching relevance to "interal matters" is only new, well over 10 years after Maastrict (ie circa 2003)

The point of McCarthy, albeit got nothing to do with minor children, indirectly disagrees with the notion that you do not have to move to another member states .Its rather odd and at variance to what was suggested in Metock and Zambrano. Point is, there is no uniform in their cases, there is no constentency and the judges did not even bother to properly consider in writing the fullness of the Adovate General's views. Thus leaving uncertaintity. Why should a child be treated differently to an adult? Ageism?


"It is crystal clear. No need for further guidance Irish Judges. Just accept the judgment, and don't create further delays and misery for Irish Citizens family."

Can't a child survive with living on in Ireland with the other non deported parent who is not keen on leaving with father? After all, some of them managed fine and well without the father at birth and early part of their lives. What about the cases involving deportation orders - there are no other cases to provide similarities (Zambrano actually was given permission to work at one point - just like the 1990 Irish case of Fajujonu) What about where the parent has commited serious crime? No its not crystal clear. The judges also failed to rule on a substanital part of the Advocate General's opinion specifically addressing reverse discrimination.

It would be better for the judge to seek guidance from the ECJ as oppose to allowing the deparment free reign to muck it all up again and cost the state millions on successfull challenges. Do it once do it right.

[IQU]

I dont think so its gonna work in ireland.you guys know doj.....