Judgement Day for Court case for non EU spouses - C-127/08

[MAKUSA]

You are right mate, i strongly agree with you, i am beginning to wonder as well if some people at the DOJ are not motivated by their dearly beloved views. How then can you explain the misinterpretation of a simple directive. Well analysed mate

[martind]

And here's from an Irish times article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 48297.html

THE DEPARTMENT of Justice is to review the cases of more than 1,500 spouses of EU citizens who were refused residency rights on the basis that they were non-EU nationals.

This follows a ruling by the European Court of Justice which found the Government should not prevent spouses of EU citizens who are not themselves EU citizens from living in the Republic.

The ruling should provide residency rights to significant numbers of non-EU national spouses, who have been served with "intent to deport" notices by the Department of Justice. It will also force the Government to amend a 2006 regulation stipulating that non-EU nationals married to EU citizens must live in another member state before moving to Ireland.

It will not affect Irish citizens married to non-EU nationals.

....

None of the spouses issued with "notice of intent to deport" orders is married to an Irish citizen, but to a citizen of other EU states.

1500 cases is a small number, so why does the Irish Govt make such a fuss and issue deportation threats ? It seems from the above that Irish people's families are treated differently from those of other Europeans.

It's sad to see that Ireland can do such things given how Irish immigrants were treated in the US/UK not that long ago.

The Government, which was supported by several other EU states including Britain and Denmark in the case, had argued that its regulation was necessary to control immigration into the EU due to "strong pressure of migration".It warned that providing non- EU spouses of EU citizens with residency rights would have serious consequences for EU states by bringing about a "great increase" in the amount of people able to gain residency.

All those American and Russian, Ukrainian spouses are such a threat.

The same ideas were used in the past to exclude Irish people in the US and the UK. Apparently "Irish need not apply" has become "non-Irish need not apply". Kind of ironical if you think about it.

[martind]

Oops.

[scrudu]

Martind: The reasons that all articles refer to the fact that this only affects "other" EU citizens and their spouses (while technically incorrect, as Irish citizens who have been exercising their treaty rights elsewhere within the EU should also be affected) and does not change current Irish legislation which governs how the spouses of Irish citizens are treated.

You incorrectly surmise that Irish citizens and their familys are "treated better" than other EU citizens. You are very incorrect. The spouses of Irish citizens have absolultely no right under current Irish law to reside with their Irish spouses in Ireland. This Court Casee which will cause a change to Irish interpretation of the Directive (and to Irish law as a matter of course) will mean that non-EU spouses of other EU citizens will have one again more rights than the non-EU spouses of Irish citizens.

If you read the court case, you will see why these people were issued with Deportation orders. The 4 applicants (non-EU spouses) were all failed asylum seekers. It is the normal process of any country to issue deportation orders to any person who has exhausted the Asylum seeker (and appeals) process. What do you suggest should have happened?

Ciarmc: I suggest you get an Italian copy of the Verdict (available from one of the links on this site) and use this when submitting any claims for residency on the basis of your marriage. I imagine this will strongly affect your situation and if the Italian authorities take the ruling on board, should result in your husband being issued with a Residency Permit.

Regarding applying to the Irish Embassy for a visa based on this directive (i.e. EU1 form), from what I remember on other posts on these Boards, you have to be living in Ireland for at least 4 months before you can apply for this permit. Perhaps something else this Court Case has managed to change? You can always apply for a D-Spouse visa through the Irish embassy, but I doubt this is what you want to get, as it is only valid for Ireland, and your husband would still have to apply for Schengen Visas anytime you wish to exit Ireland. Is your current plan to stay on in Italy or return to Ireland now?

[martind]

Martind: The reasons that all articles refer to the fact that this only affects "other" EU citizens and their spouses (while technically incorrect, as Irish citizens who have been exercising their treaty rights elsewhere within the EU should also be affected) and does not change current Irish legislation which governs how the spouses of Irish citizens are treated.

Thanks for clarifying. Treating Irish people either better or worse than other Europeans is unacceptable. It doesn't matter who is being discriminated against (Irish or non Irish).

You incorrectly surmise that Irish citizens and their familys are "treated better" than other EU citizens. You are very incorrect. The spouses of Irish citizens have absolultely no right under current Irish law to reside with their Irish spouses in Ireland. This Court Casee which will cause a change to Irish interpretation of the Directive (and to Irish law as a matter of course) will mean that non-EU spouses of other EU citizens will have one again more rights than the non-EU spouses of Irish citizens.

The article says that only spouses of non-Irish citizens have received deportation threats. Maybe the Irish Times is confused ? Or maybe Irish people don't enter marriages of convenience ?

If you read the court case, you will see why these people were issued with Deportation orders. The 4 applicants (non-EU spouses) were all failed asylum seekers. It is the normal process of any country to issue deportation orders to any person who has exhausted the Asylum seeker (and appeals) process. What do you suggest should have happened?

Were they the only spouses issued with deportation threats ? It does sound strange that someone married to a EU citizen should be deported, unless the state can prove that it was a marriage of convenience. Was that proven in any of these cases ?

Again, you sound like a defender of the Irish government, which I do not understand. Why would a victim of the situation defend actions already condemned by a European court ?!?

How do you feel about the similarities between Ireland's arguments and what was being said about the "Irish threat"
in the US, UK etc a few decades ago ? It churns my stomach to see such arguments being used by Ireland. Of all people they should know better. Also, I have trouble believing that 1500 people were all in marriages of convenience. All of these people were made to suffer.

I have a German friend who married a Japanese woman in the US years before he came to Ireland for his job (she has a MasterS degree, by the way). He left in disgust last year because of this "rule" which rendered his wife unemployed. He now lives in the UK. How do you excuse what the Irish govt did to his wife ? Do you think this sort of stuff helps Irish-Japanese and Irish-German relations ? His wife's father is in the Japanese Diet (their parliament) -- how do you think this story played with the Japanese government ?

[scrudu]

The article says that only spouses of non-Irish citizens have received deportation threats. Maybe the Irish Times is confused ? Or maybe Irish people don't enter marriages of convenience ?

The article, quite rightly in my opinion, doesn't make any reference to non-EU spouses of Irish citizens as they remain unaffected by this ruling (exception as explained in my last post). To discuss the situation Irish citizens and their non-EU spouses find themselves in, would be to detract attention from the topic at hand, i.e. the effect that this ruling by the ECJ will have on non-EU spouses of other EU citizens. And yes, non-EU spouses of Irish citizens have received deportation orders on the basis that they were not entitled to stay in the country on the basis of their marriage to an Irish citizen. Please don't confuse the situation by dropping in references to "marriages of convenience". This is a seperate matter altogether and remains unchanged by the ECJ ruling. The marriages of non-EU spouses to other EU citizens were never deemd to be "marriages of convenience", but by Irish law, the incorrect interpretation of the EU directive, these non-EU spouses were not entitled to residency on the basis of their marriage to the EU citizen.

Were they the only spouses issued with deportation threats ?

No, but it was this group you were referring to in your post. I was responding to your post.

It does sound strange that someone married to a EU citizen should be deported, unless the state can prove that it was a marriage of convenience. Was that proven in any of these cases ?

Considering what Irish law states in it's transposition of the EU directive, it doesn't sound strange at all. I believe it to be an incorrect transposition of EU law, as does the ECJ, but that was the law for the last 2-3 years. It was on the basis of this law (which stated that the couple must firstly reside in another EU state before coming to Ireland) that many non-EU spouses of EU citizens were denied residency. It was the law remember, incorrect or not.

Again, you sound like a defender of the Irish government, which I do not understand.

I'm not sure where you get idea from. Please provide quotes from any of my posts where I show sympathy for the Irish Government and Immigration policy here? I just do not feel the need to voice my opinions in each post for each new poster. I am simply responding to the posts that went before. Please do not try to read into my motives based on my posts. My posts speak for themselves. I have been opposed to the policies of the DoJ, the former and current Minsters for Justice, and INIS for quite a long time.

Also, I have trouble believing that 1500 people were all in marriages of convenience.

I should hope that you do. I imagine the vast majority of them were. But no-one has ever said that they were marriages of convenience. Again, you are mixing up two issues here. Read my first point regarding this.

[martind]

Wow. You seem to be better informed than the Irish times, and very knowledgeable of Irish politics.

Unusual for a simple immigrant.

My friend married his wife in the US a few years before being sent to Ireland by his company. Definitely not a marriage of convenience.

Ever heard about the Abe family ? This guy is one of her relatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe

One never knows who one is screwing with. I bet that her treatment did wonders for the image of Ireland in Japan.

[ciaramc]

Scrudu: I have already applied and was refused on the basis that my husband had been here illegally before we married we are now waiting for the outcome of our appeal....but we have already submitted all our documents for the judge to consider 2 weeks ago...we are hoping she will take into account this new sentence...I have already printedit out in Italian and sent it in last FRIDAY when I new the outcome!!!
But of course the Italian courts close for yes 1 and a half months 1 of August til the 15 of September so we will probably have to wait til then to get our answer???? We have already been waiting since 2006.....

I really want to move home (Ireland)......but as my hubby was never issued a residency card we could never apply for visa...now I'm just thinking of going to the Embassy( Irish one in Italy) and applying.....as Italy should have already issued the residence card based on the fact that he is a spouse of a EU citizen!!! I think they will probably turn us down....but this sentence from the European court should really help!! We want to get a spouse visa then use the EU1 applying as a spouse who has exercised their treaty rights in Europe that way my hubby would not have to apply for a schengen visa for Europe!!

Any advise much appreciated!!

[archigabe]

Wow. You seem to be better informed than the Irish times, and very knowledgeable of Irish politics.

Unusual for a simple immigrant.

MartinD, I think we can all do without your patronizing tone...
Do you have anything interesting to add to this thread without hijacking it into another rant?
thanks.

[ciaramc]

Martind read the posts carefully....SCRUDU is an Irish citizen....with a third country spouse!!!

And sorry I have to agree....it is not only EU citizen's with non EU Spouses that are effected by the Doj but also Irish citizens with non EU spouses!!

We are all in the same kinda boat??? And believme it's not only Ireland!!! Many European countries interpret the Directive wrongly.....

[martind]

Well, that explains a few things.

The HATE directed at astartes for example, and the attempts to shut down any criticism by appealing to moderators.

Someone here doesn't believe in free speech, and has trouble seeing beloved and chauvinism.

Ireland shouldn't be doing to others what others did to its people for so long.

[ciaramc]

MartinD; are you actually reading what you write???? Who exactly is coming across dearly beloved here???

We are all on this website cause we are looking for a little help from people in similar situations.....and I for one am grateful to all the moderators and Scrudu for their solid and helpful advise....they have not only helped me but also many non Irish people on here....have a read of some posts before you start ranting!

[martind]

I think that astartes is correct that the article linked to by dsab85 is dearly beloved and chauvinist.

He is also correct that the fear of immigrants contained in the arguments brought by the Irish gov in the case is chauvinistic and perhaps dearly beloved.

As an American I have no difficulty seeing that.

I also can see that some people have issues with free speech. We Americans don't run to mama every time someone doesn't like us. There are people who are strongly critical of the US, but we don't try to threaten them into silence when they talk.

Yeah, so astartes doesn't like Ireland and has strong opinions about its government. So does all of Europe about the US, but you don't see Americans being so phased by that.

[ciaramc]

Oh stop please...this was such a joyful post......until you started spouting off!!!

[martind]

Ciara: I can see by your name that you are Irish (I am Irish American).

We Irish Americans know that people born in Ireland are very sensitive about the image of their country.

From your posts I can see that you are no exception. The Irish can be as chauvinistic, dearly beloved and incompetent as anyone else.

It takes a grown up person to understand this simple truth.

[scrudu]

Ciaramc: Just to clarify, when you say "I have already applied", you are referring to applying for Residency in Italy right?

If your main plan is to move home, then I don't see why the lack of residency should deter you, unless you are adamant on applying using the EU1 application route (that is up until Friday last week). The application for the D-Spouse visa makes no stipulations about the non-EU spouse being "legally resident" in another EU member state, so given that you can prove your relationship, I imagine you would be granted the visa using this route provided you you satisfied other criteria (finances, proof of relationship, proof of address etc.).

Regarding the EU1 route, I guess all this will change once the Minister for Justice changes the Legislation and the DoJ change their policies to reflect the ECJ ruling. Once that gets implemented into Irish law, your husband should be able to get the Stamp4EUFAM. The question now is how long it will take for that to be relected into Irish law and whether it's worth it to you to wait longer in Italy to ge tthe Stamp4EUFAM which will make no difference to you once in Ireland. As you state, the only difference will be ease of travel for your husband when you wish to travel to other EU countries together. That said, you've only to look at the European forums to see that having the Stamp4EUFAM (or equivilants in other countries, e.g. UK) doesn't guarantee ease of travel in other EU countries e.g Spain

MartinD: When it comes to immigration matters, yes I would say that I and most other regular long term posters on this site are a lot more knowledgable than the Irish Times. Is that surprising considering we are living the situation rather than simply reporting on it?

Unusual for a simple immigrant

Wow, so now immigrants are "simple" by definition eh? Rather churlish and insulting a comment I have to say! Are you trying to infer that immigrants to this country are "simple" or ignorant by definition. The statistics on the education profiles of immigrants to this country simply do not back up your ignornant comment.

As for the rest of your posts, I stick to my belief the MartinD and Astartes are the same. The rhetoric is equally uninformed, off topic and irrelevant. A simple and divisive technique designed to throw off off any useful dialogue about the relevant topic, i.e. the ECJ recogntion of the rights of non-EU spouses of other EU citizens in Ireland. Personally I am now chosing to ignore any comments made by you as you insist on hijacking useful threads with inane conversation simply using posts as a way to vent your own anger. As a suggestion, you'd do well to read the odd post before replying!

[ciaramc]

Scrudu: Yes I was referring to residency...actually his permit of stay???? Which entitles you to live and work here.

I also thought that it did not state anywhere that he must be legally resident in here....but when I called the DOJ they told me he must apply from the country where he is legally resident?? Which would be his home country (Morocco). But now I'm thinking that considering the outcome on Friday he should be issued with a permit here? Just because Italy won't give us the permit, which they should if they interpret the directive properly....does not mean that we can not apply for the visa!!! As he is legally here living with his EU, treaty exercising spouse??? No?

[ciaramc]

Martin D of course your Irish American??? Isn't everyone in the States....LOL

And of course I'm proud of my country....aren't most people???

Of course there are people in Ireland who are chauvinistic, dearly beloved and incompetent .....but don't tar everyone with the same brush!

[ca.funke]

Hi all,

I applied for EU1 / EU-4-Fam-card on January 31st, thus according to the law there should be a reply by 31st of July.

• Called INIS on 00353-1-6167700 --- press 3 --- then press 2 for "married to EU" enquiries
• on July 30th 2008, 10h03 local Irish Time
• After 5 minutes waiting and
• after giving the reference # (69/123456/07) and telling the officer the applicant's name , the officer (who answered the phone with "immigration" rather than giving his name) told me:
• "this is above our time alright"
• "you should receive an answer within the next week or so".
• he couldn't say weather it will be approved or not

So they continue to ignore 2004/38/EC, at least as far as the 6-month-limit is concerned.

[Fionn]

QUOTE "also can see that some people have issues with free speech. We Americans don't run to mama every time someone doesn't like us. There are people who are strongly critical of the US, but we don't try to threaten them into silence when they talk. "

Bullshit.. The US don't threaten anyone into silence..They just silence them and stamp them as terrorists.. If that's what you call freedom, then I prefer to stay in Ireland.. Anbd by the way there'snt a much dearly beloved country than the US..stop dreaming man

[sakura]

I like to frequent the Ireland immigration section to find out about immigration matters in the country, and also to read about Ireland's approach to/relationship with the EU and its directives. It's a shame that this important thread has gone slightly off-topic. When we start writing things like "we [insert nationality] do things better", "dearly beloved [insert nationlity]", it just distracts from the main point. So please, no more derogatory comments or sense of superiority. You can have your opinions but if you want to argue your case, then provide some statistics/links.

Now I have a question: I have read the ruling but still am unsure about something. The main applicants - some (all?) had non-legal status when they applied for residency. Were they refused because they had not resided in another EU country AND they were illegal in Ireland, or was it simply the former point that Ireland refused them? Does the ruling mean that it does not matter if one is legal/illegal when applying for residency? It mentions Akrich but since the applicants in this case won residency despite the fact that they have non-legal status, does it set a precedent for other non-legal applicants? Both in Ireland and elsewhere.

(sorry if this has been answered already, just trying to bring the topic back to where it should be.)

[Fionn]

Sorry but I was just sick of reading the crap they were writing..Don't these people have anything else to do.?
Anyway let's continue talking about what matters to most of us.

[ciaramc]

Sakura; sorry for going off topic!!!

Sakura your question is exactly what I would like to know??? Anybody got any ideas????????? Are most of the spouses illegal when they married?

[zuz]

ciara mc i do not know the statistics however as i know from 2008 you need permission from MoJ to get marry when you are illegal in ireland.

[MAKUSA]

Hi all,

I applied for EU1 / EU-4-Fam-card on January 31st, thus according to the law there should be a reply by 31st of July.

• Called INIS on 00353-1-6167700 --- press 3 --- then press 2 for "married to EU" enquiries
• on July 30th 2008, 10h03 local Irish Time
• After 5 minutes waiting and
• after giving the reference # (69/123456/07) and telling the officer the applicant's name , the officer (who answered the phone with "immigration" rather than giving his name) told me:
• "this is above our time alright"
• "you should receive an answer within the next week or so".
• he couldn't say weather it will be approved or not

So they continue to ignore 2004/38/EC, at least as far as the 6-month-limit is concerned.

HIGHLY INCOMPETENT BUNCH