Zambrano - Applying for a Visa from outside the State

[walrusgumble]

@Wals,According to Danish stance on zambrano?Would u like to be deprived of ur right to have your family members especially now when non eea are availing of such right through their minor Irish born kids as well as the Automatic right of other Eu citizens in Ireland?Please i kindly advise u not answer this,cos if u do,everybody will know d real dark part of u.If u say yeah,means u r a retard.u r only saying yes cos u dnt ve a non eu family member and u dnt wish to have one as a family member.If u say no

as usual you have nothing to say about the substantive argument put to you.


first of law, i am a law abidding irish citizen. secondly, immigration law has been abused throughout europe.



morris, legal rights come to those who are legal resident and keep within the immigration laws (putting metock aside for one second)

national governments, where eu law does not apply, eg domestic immigration laws that do not involve its citizens exercising eu rights no matter how liberal like carpetner is a matter for that country. no member state would have agreed to confer competence to the eu if it meant that the eu could without a legal basis (bar the new found discovery of the citizenship term) interfere. if people want to change the laws, it should be at the doors of domestic government houses. i would not be nose out of joint if shatter brings in domestic laws to help you in that situation - it is democratic and irish people get a say.

you do not understand , clearly, that soverignty is important. yes, we have freely given soverignty to europe in other areas and if europe rules a certain way, within the confines of the treaty and provides consistent explanation, well then ok, we deal with that consequence. but member states can not tolerate the situation where the person fails to actually exercise the fundamental freedom - the right to move to another eu state. if ireland is so against cases like metock and zambrano, it makes no sense to endorse them when they don't have to when eu law is not applicable.

we are told that citizenship under article 20 is complentary. that means, in the traditional point of view, that due to this citizenship you have a right to enter another eu state. the directive 2004 / 38 ec spells out citizenship's right of residence. that directive's legal basis comes from articles such as 21 and 46 tfeu. no where does it say that the law applies where one has never lived outside one's state.

i understand from cases like carpetener,singh and eind (the last two cases to the ecj's credit at least was explained very well and did make sense) that the court looks at the future and talk about potential obstacles. that is nonsense at times especially when there is little evidence that a person would have gone to another eu state, eg shirely mccarthy who was on welfare.

people who come into this country or any country for a specific purpose such as study or asylum seeking know that their status is limited. they should not be expected to be allowed to cover behind a newly discovered family to prevent their legal endorsed deportation order when they failed to renew that status or failed all forms of asylum protection.

the figures are far too convenient in the last decade that many were merely here to work. (at least be honest) why did new rules on students come in, despite the genuine economic advantages it gives to landlords and education departments and ok, tax man? ( 8 years of language studies in a "private college") face it, economic migrants many of them, abused our trust (hey i am not going to get into the moral side of - ah who can blame them - but need be, member states are entitled to decide who you let in, the country does not owe them anything) - all of this is being said where eu law does not apply. the trust in who is a genuine asylum person is in rag order after people like pamela (i don't know her name) and the ibc 05 fiasco, much to the detriment of people who are at least from horrible war thorn countries.

it goes back to my basic point. where eu law does not apply, and if a non eu national comes into ireland or any country, and where they are not family members of eu people on arrival, they should enter ireland on work permits etc. why should people who come in legally on work permits be treated less favourably than other people who entered illegally or their legal right to stay expired and now they get it easy simply by engineering a family?

actually, for those who have actually worked their assess off and kept their work permits etc and put up with ALOT of crap, how do you feel about how easy it has been for others coming here (who would never have gotten the permits as the work force were not needed) and simply got status (full blown full right to work anywhere) by having a child or getting married? or what about those who came and applied for asylum without a CREDIBLE claim? ( i have little faith in that question being truthfully answered - i suppose that "story" is full of crap too)


to answer your question directly, if i was in that situation, i would be educated enough to realise that both situations are completely different and are based on different legal orders. i would also realise that all i have to do, if i was really bothered, would be to move to another eu country and return to ireland later, envoking my rights. because i know the laws, bar a bearing a child (which would be irish and no way would it leave ireland regardless of what happened to the mother) i would not marry that non eu woman unless and until they had status, or, i would be prepared to actually take the sacrifice and leave ireland to be with her, if she was to be removed. that of course is due to me knowing what the laws are.these are issues which people don't think about. why risk the inevitable divorce proceedings.

it is also likely that , provided that that person does not have a deportation order, that person would succeed in an application to stay in ireland provided. the department and court are not that bad, especially under the new regime - remember, the domestic decisions are administrative and not in legislation

[walrusgumble]

@wals,u said am of low intelligence yet u dnt even know what national measures are.The art. covering Zambrano says it precludes nationals measures(domestic policy,wals policy,Dermot's policy)As u know Eu laws supercedes national law,if any of the memberstate can adhere to that,then they should stop being a member of the union.am gonna ask u a question on my next post to show u how foolish and blind ur arguments are because if u say yes to d question means u r a complete retard,if u say no means u r a (swearword for a bad person)

policy that for once, a majority of irish citizens of all circles agree with! by the way, its government policy not one person.


i would rather be a (swearword for a bad person) than a lying self serving person like you.

what article are you are referring to?

yes eu law supercedes national law. but it only superceedes national law where the eu actually have the right to rule on the area. it only superceedes eu law when member states give the eu the right to rule by amending the treaty. the member states have not agreed with the interpretation of the ecj in zambrano. there is no right to do this and zambrano decision is illegimate and an infringement of article 5 teu.

if member states decided to leave the union on every minor disagreement, then there would be no stable union. the french would have caused chaos by then if they did what you suggest

quite alot of you guys would be out of this country either forced or by your own personal and free decision if ireland left the eu. (something that is being taken into consideration in the last while - by the euro spectics)
you don't like what the government is doing then by all means go somewhere else. - so there is little logic with what you have said.

foolish and blind? what country makes laws based on emotional and the utter bollox you are talking about.

i have answered your free the world we non eu people are owed a life.

so, you now answer the question i have put before you and others on countless times.

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF YOUR COUNTRY IN DEALING WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS?

secondly, you are accusing me of having a dark side (a desire to prevent laws being side stepped, by god!) so you answer this, because i want to see whether your views are self serving/self maintenance or they are genuine

what was your legal status upon entering ireland

[walrusgumble]

I heard the Zambrano case and the government 's response is to be discussed on rte prime time tonight

i am not directing this at you.


ah for talk to sake. within two minutes were get a female lawyer who clearly has forgotten the supreme court case of 2003 and the approval by the public of the 2003 case and the true reasons why ireland wanted to refuse citizenship in 2004. what a bunch of revisionism

absolutely fair point on the delays and demand for the rules being put into law and even the constitution

now you will realise, from what i have said in the past, is shared by others (ie the possibilites that might happen or try to happen)so shatter, zambrano is really that clear? whatever the results are, the ecj must be referred to again

so people like morris and other who are accusing me of ulterior motives for pointing out that zambrano is not clear, should really stop posting against my comments. at least you will now see that the arguments about zambrano are legitimate questions

[fatty patty]

How is it open to abuse? You either live the the country you geuinely declare that your been deprived of residing or your not? Where is the suggestions? What loop holes is their to the established basis that residency counts!!!!!! You should mean that it would be the agenda setters like the ECJ who seek loopholes to causing Zambrano to extend to completely other areas.

Where was the abuse after Metock?
There is very little chance of ECJ getting away with interfering with internal matters. If they don't do it with adults, children can not be justified.

Zambrano can only act in one area and that is child's right, i don't see and i am try to reason after looking at McCarthy / Chen conclusion (i just simply cant read page after page of rulings to be honest) they are absolutely different, dealing in different scenarios. How can there be a co relation between McCarthy - Zambrano - Chen. Chen is pretty much useless after Zambrano i guess.

When i meant abuse i also meant by both parties (applicants & states). Sham marriages (applicants), no we are not gonna give you answer within 6 months (states) and now we don't recognize dual nationalities (states). What i meant also by zambrano abuse is candidate who entered sham marriages are with their real spouses who have given birth to their child who becomes union citizen coz dady/mommy has EUFAM4 so undocumented/student/visit mommy/daddy has to be given stamp4 (there is one angle of abuse of zambrano but i am hypothetically speaking here there can be others that's is why a clear policy and referencing is required).

I don't see ECJ is interfering with internal matter here well yes to a certain extent but not as such that the whole family legislation in Ireland has to be rewritten small bit of tinkering required to define family reunification, and i know ppl gonna talk about floodgates to be opened up and what not but that is just scare mongering.

This will be a welcome return from the dangerous and "abusive" use of Court powers and their failure to respect areas of law outside their completence as seen in Metock and Zambrano.

Citizen's rights, or Constitutional Rights in Ireland tend to be based on one actually residing in Ireland. The same attitude goes to other Countries. Irish Citizens in countries other than Ireland are not for example entitled to vote in the Dail. They may not automatically be entitled to certain welfare upon return from another country. Something tells me that the ECJ won't be so quick in shoving some of their undemocratic (I said some) values in the area of free movement in light of European Wide economic climate.

I agree but atleast the citizen has the right to return to their citizenry state here in Zambrano scenarios deported kids/parents haven't even given the opportunity to start. Minor Irish can't travel back to Ireland on their own have to be accompanied by parents/guardians and in this case parents guardians don't have the visa to travel/denied.

If you are going to rely on Zambrano why can't you not actually read what it says, especially in light of McCarthy? It does not actually provide a "general right"

It does actually...look it, Zambrano as mentioned only deals with Mr. Luis Zambrano's current scenario where he was the parent of a union citizen and he was undocumented, their are lots of other nitty gritty stuff that has to be Ironed out and courts all over Europe will be referring to more reasoning from ECJ or use their own discretion. I wont be surprise if there are more JRs going through the courts over this.

[Obie]

Walrusgrumble, i am sorry that you think the way you do.

Yes i agree with the ECJ, as they are assigned the role as superior interpreter of EU LAW.

The courts or tribunal sends question to the ECJ, and they provide answers to the questions asked relating to the correct interpretation of EU LAW for the benefit of the whole union. There is a division of competency between the CJEU and the national courts/tribunal, and a relationship of joint cooperation. The courts answers question and provide correct intepretation, and it is left to national court to use those answers to resolve the case or assess the effect of those answers to the case they have before them. If the question is purely internal to a memberstate, then it is not admissable, and a preliminary ruling cannot be given. The question of whether Zambrano was purely internal to Belgium is out of the question, as not a single memberstate or the commission question the CJEU Jurisdictional authority to answer the questions raised. If they have jurisdiction to answer a question of that nature, which i think they do, i see no reason to question their judgement. It was open to the 27 learned judges to reach the conclusion they reached.

I say so because, there was a deep flaw in Chen which needed to be resolved in Zambrano. How could Union Citizenship have any meaning or value, if people who have it are unable to enjoy the benefits it entail. This will be the consequence if an Irish citizen has to be indirectly forced to live the state with their parents by means of deportation of their parents. Come 18, they will not be able to afford the cost to return back home, they will have huge difficulty integrating in their Home country with their compatriot, and chances are, they will lack the Education, freedom and health facility available to their compatriot. In those circumstances i strongly believe Zambrano was morally right. This could have a damaging effect on a child, especially if they had started school, speak only Irish english, made friends, and being detached from all of that. That could be described as cruelty of a kind that cannot be expected of any civilised nation.

The court did not say anyone born in Ireland can stay, but only those who are citizen and hold the status of Union Citizenship.

You get my gist.

Incidentally, i have no personal interest in Zambrano, as none of my immediate family members or friend or myself were rescued by it.

All the members of the court are not political appointees, they were selected by each of the 27 member states, to represent the interest of the Union and its citizens, and to provide interpretion to EU LAW , that serve the interest of the Union and its citizen and not any individual memberstate.

I might have had some sympathy with you views if the court had ruled that zambrano beneficiaries can claim rights under the directve, but the rightly refused to do so in Zambrano or McCARTHY.

The definition of Union Citizen under Article 20, does not differenciate on whether one has moved or not. The only conditon is that the person claiming it, should hold the nationality of a member state. In those circumstances i believe the courts were right to rule on the effect of this right.

It is Union Citizenship that confer the right of Movement, and not movement that confer the right of union citizenship.

By they way, calling people stupid, ignorant and fool is condesending, arrogant and does not potray you in a positive light at all.

I have no problem with being insulted. I have scar tissues. But it is nice to show respect for humanity, even when we disagree.

[walrusgumble]

How is it open to abuse? You either live the the country you geuinely declare that your been deprived of residing or your not? Where is the suggestions? What loop holes is their to the established basis that residency counts!!!!!! You should mean that it would be the agenda setters like the ECJ who seek loopholes to causing Zambrano to extend to completely other areas.

Where was the abuse after Metock?
There is very little chance of ECJ getting away with interfering with internal matters. If they don't do it with adults, children can not be justified.

Zambrano can only act in one area and that is child's right, i don't see and i am try to reason after looking at McCarthy / Chen conclusion (i just simply cant read page after page of rulings to be honest) they are absolutely different, dealing in different scenarios. How can there be a co relation between McCarthy - Zambrano - Chen. Chen is pretty much useless after Zambrano i guess.

When i meant abuse i also meant by both parties (applicants & states). Sham marriages (applicants), no we are not gonna give you answer within 6 months (states) and now we don't recognize dual nationalities (states). What i meant also by zambrano abuse is candidate who entered sham marriages are with their real spouses who have given birth to their child who becomes union citizen coz dady/mommy has EUFAM4 so undocumented/student/visit mommy/daddy has to be given stamp4 (there is one angle of abuse of zambrano but i am hypothetically speaking here there can be others that's is why a clear policy and referencing is required).

I don't see ECJ is interfering with internal matter here well yes to a certain extent but not as such that the whole family legislation in Ireland has to be rewritten small bit of tinkering required to define family reunification, and i know ppl gonna talk about floodgates to be opened up and what not but that is just scare mongering.

This will be a welcome return from the dangerous and "abusive" use of Court powers and their failure to respect areas of law outside their completence as seen in Metock and Zambrano.

Citizen's rights, or Constitutional Rights in Ireland tend to be based on one actually residing in Ireland. The same attitude goes to other Countries. Irish Citizens in countries other than Ireland are not for example entitled to vote in the Dail. They may not automatically be entitled to certain welfare upon return from another country. Something tells me that the ECJ won't be so quick in shoving some of their undemocratic (I said some) values in the area of free movement in light of European Wide economic climate.

I agree but atleast the citizen has the right to return to their citizenry state here in Zambrano scenarios deported kids/parents haven't even given the opportunity to start. Minor Irish can't travel back to Ireland on their own have to be accompanied by parents/guardians and in this case parents guardians don't have the visa to travel/denied.

If you are going to rely on Zambrano why can't you not actually read what it says, especially in light of McCarthy? It does not actually provide a "general right"

It does actually...look it, Zambrano as mentioned only deals with Mr. Luis Zambrano's current scenario where he was the parent of a union citizen and he was undocumented, their are lots of other nitty gritty stuff that has to be Ironed out and courts all over Europe will be referring to more reasoning from ECJ or use their own discretion. I wont be surprise if there are more JRs going through the courts over this.

You are misinterpreting Chen a small bit. Chen is still valid because Zambrano only deals with Citizen Children and their rights to live in the country of Birth. Chen (which clearly would have accepted the internal law situation) deals with the limited right of eu children to live in other eu countries. It says nothing about children's right to live in country of their birth. It therefore remain. However, you are right, it is a useless decision for the less well off. I am referring to many people who have this notion that they can use Zambrano in adult context. It would not be that hard to get any legal non eu/irish/eu pregnant you know.Many already have family here. (McCarthy DID NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO RELY ON THE CITIZENSHIP PROVISION LIKE ZAMBRANRO)

How is it open to abuse? REally are asking that question? Have you seen the disproportionate amount of asylum applications which have been made from nationals of countries which the UN has considered to be safe countries (ie persecution). Countries can't stop these people coming in. Now Zambrano seems to suggest that any parent with an Irish Citizen child even by decent came come here and come up with this abstract nonsense about being geneuinely deprived of citizenship, even though they have rarely resided in Ireland. In case you have not noticed, family engineering, whether you like it or not, has occurred in the last decade. Very little was said when the Supreme COurt ruled on this in 2003 (merely confirming what the law was)


Metock has turned out to be a false alarm, solely in the sense that it is not enough to be married to an EU national, but that eu national must work or do other activities to show they are exercising eu rights. the reality is many are not working or have returned to their country of origin. I have ALWAYS said that we won't really now the facts until 4-5 years time in the family law courts. I would love to know the figures for marriage between eu and non eu now, to see if there is an increase or decrease in light of the current economy. Metock is within the E'Us competence. I never suggested otherwise. It is not a purely interenal matter which the State in that case tried to suggest. My arguement was that there was a lack of discussion about why it was favoured over a similar case of akrich.

Abuse also refer to the ECJ trampling on National Laws which they have no being given specific competence, and which is an infringement of the Treaty itself.

You said
"i meant abuse i also meant by both parties (applicants & states). Sham marriages (applicants), no we are not gonna give you answer within 6 months (states) and now we don't recognize dual nationalities (states). What i meant also by zambrano abuse is candidate who entered sham marriages are with their real spouses who have given birth to their child who becomes union citizen coz dady/mommy has EUFAM4 so undocumented/student/visit mommy/daddy has to be given stamp4 (there is one angle of abuse of zambrano but i am hypothetically speaking here there can be others that's is why a clear policy and referencing is required). "

The dual Nationality issue, It is patently clear that Ms McCarthy was clearly taking advantage of both country's generous approach to the recognition of dual nationality .She was as Irish as the Pope is a nice liberal man. She never bothered to exercise her right to be Irish (ie get a passport) conveniently until she had no other choice. I wonder did even Monife actually personally (i would not say outwardly as it might have been frowned upon in Ireland) considered herself to be British, 2-4 years ago? By the way, Patty, is was your country's attitude to do this too.

[walrusgumble]

Walrusgrumble, i am sorry that you think the way you do.

Yes i agree with the ECJ, as they are assigned the role as superior interpreter of EU LAW.

The courts or tribunal sends question to the ECJ, and they provide answers to the questions asked relating to the correct interpretation of EU LAW for the benefit of the whole union. There is a division of competency between the CJEU and the national courts/tribunal, and a relationship of joint cooperation. The courts answers question and provide correct intepretation, and it is left to national court to use those answers to resolve the case or assess the effect of those answers to the case they have before them. If the question is purely internal to a memberstate, then it is not admissable, and a preliminary ruling cannot be given. The question of whether Zambrano was purely internal to Belgium is out of the question, as not a single memberstate or the commission question the CJEU Jurisdictional authority to answer the questions raised. If they have jurisdiction to answer a question of that nature, which i think they do, i see no reason to question their judgement. It was open to the 27 learned judges to reach the conclusion they reached.

I say so because, there was a deep flaw in Chen which needed to be resolved in Zambrano. How could Union Citizenship have any meaning or value, if people who have it are unable to enjoy the benefits it entail. This will be the consequence if an Irish citizen has to be indirectly forced to live the state with their parents by means of deportation of their parents. Come 18, they will not be able to afford the cost to return back home, they will have huge difficulty integrating in their Home country with their compatriot, and chances are, they will lack the Education, freedom and health facility available to their compatriot. In those circumstances i strongly believe Zambrano was morally right. This could have a damaging effect on a child, especially if they had started school, speak only Irish english, made friends, and being detached from all of that. That could be described as cruelty of a kind that cannot be expected of any civilised nation.

The court did not say anyone born in Ireland can stay, but only those who are citizen and hold the status of Union Citizenship.

You get my gist.

Incidentally, i have no personal interest in Zambrano, as none of my immediate family members or friend or myself were rescued by it.

All the members of the court are not political appointees, they were selected by each of the 27 member states, to represent the interest of the Union and its citizens, and to provide interpretion to EU LAW , that serve the interest of the Union and its citizen and not any individual memberstate.

I might have had some sympathy with you views if the court had ruled that zambrano beneficiaries can claim rights under the directve, but the rightly refused to do so in Zambrano or McCARTHY.

The definition of Union Citizen under Article 20, does not differenciate on whether one has moved or not. The only conditon is that the person claiming it, should hold the nationality of a member state. In those circumstances i believe the courts were right to rule on the effect of this right.

It is Union Citizenship that confer the right of Movement, and not movement that confer the right of union citizenship.

By they way, calling people stupid, ignorant and fool is condesending, arrogant and does not potray you in a positive light at all.

I have no problem with being insulted. I have scar tissues. But it is nice to show respect for humanity, even when we disagree.

Stop the Press.

No Preliminary Reference case has put before the Court , Does the ECJ have a right to rule on areas where its outside EU competence. Not even McCarthy.

You are ridiculously and incorrectly suggesting that the ECJ can make an interpretation on EU law on Any issue it sees fit, even if the Treaty does not provide a shred of Guidelines.

Bear in mind, that Lisbon has changed the Treaty provisions (Metock was pre Lisbon) Lisbon sets out the type of rights contained in Article 20, which clearly refers to right to freemovement only. Even the Courts acknowledged that it strained the interpretation of the Citizenship Article. It did so with an abstract forward thinking view about the future possibilities of potential obstacles. That is not a basis in law, ie hypothetical situations. The straned reference goes outside the competence of eu law. If the Courts were wiling to do it for children, then why not adults.

As usual you completely miss the point of the criticism. HOW CAN YOU ALLOW AN UNELECTED (DEMOCRATICALLY) elites have such powerful control over legislation and its meaning without any proper restraints (like in National Courts) when they themselves are not capable of coming to consistent decisions. It is also worth pointing out that THE COURT ONLY ISSUES A SINGLE JUDGEMENT - Unlike the ECtHR and many national courts. We have no idea of how close the decision was, and the basis of the dissenters and assenters, thus making it more prone to critism.

facing well done young man, for coping and pasting the fundamental relationship of the national and eu courts. You still fail to answer the question put before you. Of course the National courts had an obligation in Zambrano to refer the case to THe ECJ. In light of previous caselaw in the area of Citizenship, it had a duty to send it. It does not mean that the court came to a certain view or expectation. It was perfectly valid to send the case to europe. one has no problem with that duty being upheld. A duty to send the case would likely have arrived if it went to the Supreme Court or the applicants brought the case to the Attention of the COmmission who would then have brought the country to court. so ecj would have dealt with it either way - FUNNY ENOUGH, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE DISAGREED WITH THE COURT.

Oh course you see no reason to question the judges. why would you, you could not give a shite about the contradictions in McCarthy, because it does not effect you. Oh but you did pretend to do so for a while. You are not an EU citizen, so you views on this salient issue are irrelevant and have no credibility

As far as Ireland was concerned in Chen and Zambrano, it was a DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE TO THE ANGER OF IRISH CITIZENS to the loopholes found in our generous citizenship rules in order to find a way of getting into Ireland by other means. Ireland democraticly recognised that it could treat certain people who, in the words of the Minister in Lobe, did not have genuine links to the country (ie lived in Ireland legally or illegally for more than 2 years) ECJ stayed silent then. In fact the Commission went mental on Ireland and strongly recommended that we change our citizenship laws after Chen.

Your interpretation of Chen is a small bit flawed. That has got to be the best example of the abuse to Irish citizenship one can give. ECj chickened out because they had money and were well off.

T"he court did not say anyone born in Ireland can stay, but only those who are citizen and hold the status of Union Citizenship."

Yes, and no. No in the sense that it can only happen when to refuse to do so would cause a genuine deprievement in the right of enjoyment of eu citizens and residence in the union. Ie if they left for Britian, there would be no deprivement as they were in the union (going by what McCarthy says) By the way, you are also forgetting that most of these children are NOT ALIENS when they return to their parents country.MOst will be entitled to nationality of their parents country. None of the members of the family grew an attachment to the state anyway, the child is less than 2-3 years old.HOWEVER, THE STATE IS ALREADY REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES UNDER DOMESTIC LAW - DIMBO

[angelcountry]

The subject matter per precedence of Zhu and Chen and Zambrano falls under directive of the pillar of article 20 and 21 {1} of the TFEU, And it has also spell out the contest of family right to that legitimate rights.

Further to that argument is the baumbast case against secretary of state home office of britain, what they hell is going here ?

[lily74]

Has anyone heard further about approval for more court cases this week? I learnt there were some approvals
in the last week

[Obie]

To Walrusgrumble.

Again i support the reasoning behing the CJEU reasoning in ZAmbrano and it make perfect sense.

Mr Zambrano has lived in Belgium for several years. He had not sought to circumvent the immigration rules of Belgium Illicitly. They are a genuine family. He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.

This can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

[angelcountry]

To Walrusgrumble.

Again i support the reasoning behing the CJEU reasoning in ZAmbrano and it make perfect sense.

Mr Zambrano has lived in Belgium for several years. He had not sought to circumvent the immigration rules of Belgium Illicitly. They are a genuine family. He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.

This can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

The 27 members states in the union signed up to the case law binding all members state, and if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate.

[walrusgumble]

The subject matter per precedence of Zhu and Chen and Zambrano falls under directive of the pillar of article 20 and 21 {1} of the TFEU, And it has also spell out the contest of family right to that legitimate rights.

Further to that argument is the baumbast case against secretary of state home office of britain, what they hell is going here ?

Yes it has direct effect, so what?. Direct effect is available when the provision is clear, unconditional and there is nothing further required to legislate by either the member state or institution. Articles 20 and 21 TFEU are clear on that. No one disputes that. It means that a person can use that as an argument before a national court and seek protection under it.. McCarthy was entitled to rely on Article 20 and 21 and forced both national and eu court to consider her case under eu law. She lost, as ecj accepted that article 20 and 21 tfeu did not apply

All direct effect does (i don't want to make it sound like its nothing - that would be wrong - its a hugely important doctrine) it allow a person to use eu law in their arguments before a national corrects. if their argument is correct, they can get the protection of eu law. if it was not applicable the national courts and more importantly eu courts would not entertain the case. It is still for the courts to decide whether the person can succeed in seeking protection from that treaty provision, in light of eu law. Thats all it does (of course the chances of winning, are normally very good especially with the current ecj's attitude to citizenship)

But it does not explain the legal basis for the conclusions that the courts have come to. There is nothing in either articles that gives the court a right to interpret it where purely internal matters are concerned as seen in Zambrano. It is also contradictory to the fact that adults are treated differently

In Baumbast, there was an exercise of treaty rights, which did not occur in Zambrano. In Baumbast the german father came over to the UK and worked. He had children, also citizens who stayed in School. These children had an individual right to stay in school (article 12 Regulation 1612/68) Sadly their father fecked off on them, leaving the mother and children to fend for themselves. Rightly the ECJ ruled that the non eu mother could stay because the child was actually exercising an eu right ie school. that right was achieved under Article 12 of the Regulation. At no time was anyone illegal, until the father fecked off. The child was a german living in Britain. although born in Britian, did not have a right to british nationality - please correct me here if i am wrong.

None of these facts were similar to zambrano. also, baumbast happened before lisbon treaty , the fact that Article 20 (ex Article 17ec) now confirms that one has a right to freely move to another eu state. Article 21 (ex 18ec) says citizenship is subject to the limations and conditions set out in the treaty (public policy etc) and secondary legislation directive 2004/38 ec.

Of course, the ecj won't interpret these clear provisions striclty and have been willing to go beyond the terms of the treaty and directive. Its not the result that i complain about, its the method - its legally unprincipled, subjective and giving the courts a role that it is not entitled to ie law making. this goes beyond the powers of the court as provided by the treaty. it also risks the treat of the court ruling in areas of eu law, which are NOT conferred on the union , thus breaching national soverignty. Any national court regardless of the topic, refrains from going beyond their constitutional remit. No doubt 20 years time, the ECJ may completely change their minds, if it has not been forced (ie admenment of treaty)

In Chen, the child actually had eu citizenship of another country than the country the child wanted to live in (the rights and wrongs are for another day) but at least its arguable that there was freemovement, regardless how liberal.

There was no such basis in for such a consideration in zambrano

Its is obvious that these cases invoked the fundamental charter of human rights. the problem though, is that it was not included in the lisbon treaty bar a small reference, a significant one which gave the same effect. It was not included in the treaty because it was well known that the inclusion of same would result in the treaty as a whole being refused by member states. funny though it took such an approach when the declaration pretty much achieved the same result.

This still does not excuse the court in using the citizenship provision, which is silent on static movement, to interfere with the belgian decision to rule on its own citizens and parents.

Oh yes, citizenship is hoped/or aspired to be the fundamental status of a citizen as stated by the court. The problem is that, that is all that it is. hope/aspiration and a legal claim. Its not defacto. south of ireland once had a legal claim to northern ireland in the constitution. but that was not the de facto and true legal position. the court must interpret the treaty. the treaty says nothing about de facto or future impression that citizenship of the eu will be a fundamental status.

this smacks of federalism. member states , most of them who still have respect for themselves, do not want federalism. it was refused in the eu constitution. it smacks of absolute supremacy over national citizenship. the current provision simply says its complementary ie it assist someone who actually want to do what the treaty allows them to do - that is move to another country. This also could be argued to be infringement of Articles 1-5 of tfeu (i need to clarify that better, later) and articles 1-5 of teu - I will get the proper provision latter but its amongst that , ie the union must respect the cultural, nationality and territorial integrity of each member state when considering its competence to rule .

Very few people would accept this notion of fundamental status if put before a referendum. Although the Germans don't do referendums, the recent German Constitutional Court decision on Lisbon would suggest it would fail too. The Czechs and Polish Courts, in light of their cases on lisbon, would definitely be against it. The french and Dutch went bonkers on the Constitution on matter , in my opinion, were actually harmless.

The courts are not the law makers. it has no competence or qualification to make laws. i don't think even the commission accepts the legal claim by the court. The Councils certaintly don't (most of them) Until its stated in the treaty and member states freely confer to the union such rights and even allow them to rule on internal matters, its very difficult to accept this decision.

It would have been much better if the ECJ in Zambrano soley relied on some form of Fundamental rights as oppose to soley citizenship. Even under the more strictier Article 8 echr (note art 8.2) might have been more sympathetic, on a European Stage as oppose to Member states courts.

I have no real malice towards these people at all, I am soley pissed off with the arrogance shown by the ECJ to provide solid foundation for the decisions. That is the major problem.

It is unprincipled as it is subjective and member states are left in a situation of being sued for breach of eu law which they do not know was the case - in light of previous case law that supports them. we don't really know what the ecj will do next. because iof the lack of explanation and fact that there is only a single judgment (for very good reasons to be honest) and the complete failure to discuss very interesting (despite being off the wall) points raised by advocate generals. The courts are accountable to no one to be honest and because of the serious implications that is causes to all members states financially etc, member states should be expected to be told clearly what is going on.

Zambrano and mccarthy is certaintly going to spin off more eu cases as the courts have failed to deal with the issues before them properly, for the court to contradict themselves further. Causing more of a nuisance.

Member states, in the alternative are going to get their back up against the wall and become very restrictive in the provision of citizenship, much to the detriment of genuine and deserving people

to do the decent thing is one thing, but to completely ignore the soverignty and its own competence to rule is completely another thing

Look. If any one is going to respond. Please read the the post in full. IOf you do not understand anything I say, please ask for clarification before making assumptions or to completely mis quote me. If you disagree with what i say completely on a its not fair basis and put no genuine effort in supporting your arguement, i will either ignore you , as i am wasting my time with people who don't want to appreciate the issues concerned, or are self interest and too blind to see it (i don't blame some people as their lives depend on this)

The interpretations and points raised by me are valid. I am not the only person to raise these issues. If anyone watched prime time last thursday will now know that these issues are valid (obviously he did not go into the extent that i did)

Perferably, I would much rather respond to people like immigrationlawyer or patty, at least they won't come up with trite.

[walrusgumble]

To Walrusgrumble.

Again i support the reasoning behing the CJEU reasoning in ZAmbrano and it make perfect sense.

Mr Zambrano has lived in Belgium for several years. He had not sought to circumvent the immigration rules of Belgium Illicitly. They are a genuine family. He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.

This can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

The 27 members states in the union signed up to the case law binding all members state, and if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate.

27 member states also signed up to the provisions relating to the competence of the european union to act soley in areas that the very same member states conferred rights to do so.

The powers of the union, irrespective of what the union says are only given to the union on the basis of the member states actually agreeing to give that union powers. the future destination of the union lies soley in the power of member states and their people. it is member states who choose the commission . it is the member states who elect the judges.

it did not sign up to a unilateral attempt by the courts to seek more power than it is already given ie zambrano and citizenship and internal matters.

There is , despite the artifical sense, a doctrine of the separation of powers in the union.

You said
can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

Where did it say that McCarthy NEVER worked? even if she did work, eu law would not have arise. the court only recongised her british citizenship . it did not want to recongise her irish citizenship because she never really acted as an irish person. (ie only got passport when she wanted to marry) Where did it say that if she had exercised her treaty rights she would have got a claim. you mean if she was working? please point that out. Hey its possible in light of inconsistent rulings of the eu ie uecker and jacques. She did not have similar facts to merit the same treaty as in carpenter as she never even left the uk.

zambrano, yes, its unlikely the child could have relied on chen and move elsewhere. but the treaty still does not state that memeber states have a right to deal with internal matters. in fact it is not allowed. it still interfering with domestic law which it has no right and all the case law that it relied upon was factually substantially different, as in many cases, there was actually some form of exercise of treaty rights by either the child or parent (ie baumbast)

Why treat a adult differently? The reality is, due to economic problems, very few adults of certain means will succeed in going to another member state and succeed on metock and directive 2004/38 EC. why should adults have to uproot their lives in order to do this .by the way in no way am i advocating that member states should treat its own citizens in a certain way, especially where illegals and failed asylum seekers of no genuine history together occurs, thats for the minister -

if they had money and can be self sufficient and if they had married after a long term relationship i would be more sympathetic, the ecj was too arrogant to consider this (it had no problems in the past to decide on matters that were not put to them in the preliminary reference, so why dodge the consideration now?)

while there is nothing in the treaty or legislation that says legal status is required, the same can be said that there is nothing in these provisions that legal status is not required. this is not the fault of the court, and it should be confirmed by legislation or better still treaty (which would thump any pervious caselaw) when that happens there will be no complaint from me.

then, what you have said would be perfectly valid, in my opinion.

You said
if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate. :lol

Even after such a long and varied discussion about these cases, you still fail to to understand that Zambrano cases failed on the Directive argument. If the law was properly applied, in my opinion, you would not be all smiley faces.So, in the context of Zambrano, by all means please write away, the Commission will be more than happy to waste its time to remind you that under the directive you have no case. (there is nothing worse than using smiley faces to comments that are completely wrong. Its like you are accepting stupidity)

Yeah, economic problems = the most vunerable in society, normally the immigrant, being screwed. not funny. The state wll possibly take its revenge on those who claim social as funded by our friends in europe, when they try to apply for citizenship. social welfare will be cut even further. Jobs will be tight and in light of chen, its unlikely that the parent of a irish citizen child could successfully invoke treaty rights in other countries. If things get really bad in europe or ireland (i doubt it) we will see how the ecj's notions are put to the test.

Show how, in light of the last couple of cases, the Commission seem to be very sympathetic to Ireland on this particular issue. Our friends the british would step in. the danes too, the french might make an issue to. wow, thats alot of votes in council.It also helps that the Germans were livid over Zambrano. hmm, amendments to the treaty perhaps(unlikely but the threat is there - at this point i am speculating the threat but not the support)

Simply to balance things
One advantage is that there will be no more frivolous asylum claims. (genuine asylum seekers i have no hostitility towards) I wonder if the members states were allowed to stop providing accommodation service (not allowed under eu law - at this would be inhumane regardless of one's claim) how many economic migrants would come under the pretence of asylum (no doubt there would be some, but at least then when caught and can be removed) Other thing to is since eu people won't get jobs here there won't be any more eu treaty claims, or possibly many marriages. the citizenship laws are tightened. so maybe the fears of all this immigration lark raised by member states are unfounded.

Before i get branded the usual dearly beloved crap, the point of the last three paragrpahs was simply to point out one salient fact. Your comment on bankruptcy is not only stupid but tasteless. Making jokes about the economy is a bit thick because you and your family, me, and millions all over europe are seriously affected. But unlike many immigrants, it won't be as bad for me and others.

You said
He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.


Wow he had no criminal record, he should get a medal. did he have a right to work in the first place? i suppose he should get a gold star for paying taxes too? how do you know that he did not deliberately get the wife pregnant? do you know him? in fairness, i would not make such an accusation but at the same time he knew it would help. Sure didn't the Beligans change their laws on citizenship afterwards? Going by ECtHR basis, what age where the girls? Columbian citizen is relevant they could live in Columbia, there asylum case failed, and they did not get subsidiary protection, they would at least be safe (hmm, I won't assume that too much to be honest) poverty is not a ground for the real reason that they went to belgium. It was not like in Chen, where at least I can accept some of the reasons, where the child was only entitled to irish citizenship and would be treated as a foreigner in china.

Now before i get branded the usual dearly beloved crap, if you respond i simply want you to do one thing before that. Ask your self, if this happened in your country, and the continent had a similar legal order as the EU and you never left that country (because you have, you might be more sympathetic), can you can that your country would do the same as what the eu has done? what would your honest attitude be? Are you a hypocrite (your honesty would be respected) or are you genuine? will you answer this question ?

[lily74]

To Walrusgrumble.

Again i support the reasoning behing the CJEU reasoning in ZAmbrano and it make perfect sense.

Mr Zambrano has lived in Belgium for several years. He had not sought to circumvent the immigration rules of Belgium Illicitly. They are a genuine family. He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.

This can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

The 27 members states in the union signed up to the case law binding all members state, and if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate.

27 member states also signed up to the provisions relating to the competence of the european union to act soley in areas that the very same member states conferred rights to do so.

The powers of the union, irrespective of what the union says are only given to the union on the basis of the member states actually agreeing to give that union powers. the future destination of the union lies soley in the power of member states and their people. it is member states who choose the commission . it is the member states who elect the judges.

it did not sign up to a unilateral attempt by the courts to seek more power than it is already given ie zambrano and citizenship and internal matters.

There is , despite the artifical sense, a doctrine of the separation of powers in the union.

You said
can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

Where did it say that McCarthy NEVER worked? even if she did work, eu law would not have arise. the court only recongised her british citizenship . it did not want to recongise her irish citizenship because she never really acted as an irish person. (ie only got passport when she wanted to marry) Where did it say that if she had exercised her treaty rights she would have got a claim. you mean if she was working? please point that out. Hey its possible in light of inconsistent rulings of the eu ie uecker and jacques. She did not have similar facts to merit the same treaty as in carpenter as she never even left the uk.

zambrano, yes, its unlikely the child could have relied on chen and move elsewhere. but the treaty still does not state that memeber states have a right to deal with internal matters. in fact it is not allowed. it still interfering with domestic law which it has no right and all the case law that it relied upon was factually substantially different, as in many cases, there was actually some form of exercise of treaty rights by either the child or parent (ie baumbast)

Why treat a adult differently? The reality is, due to economic problems, very few adults of certain means will succeed in going to another member state and succeed on metock and directive 2004/38 EC. why should adults have to uproot their lives in order to do this .by the way in no way am i advocating that member states should treat its own citizens in a certain way, especially where illegals and failed asylum seekers of no genuine history together occurs, thats for the minister -

if they had money and can be self sufficient and if they had married after a long term relationship i would be more sympathetic, the ecj was too arrogant to consider this (it had no problems in the past to decide on matters that were not put to them in the preliminary reference, so why dodge the consideration now?)

while there is nothing in the treaty or legislation that says legal status is required, the same can be said that there is nothing in these provisions that legal status is not required. this is not the fault of the court, and it should be confirmed by legislation or better still treaty (which would thump any pervious caselaw) when that happens there will be no complaint from me.

then, what you have said would be perfectly valid, in my opinion.

You said
if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate. :lol

Even after such a long and varied discussion about these cases, you still fail to to understand that Zambrano cases failed on the Directive argument. If the law was properly applied, in my opinion, you would not be all smiley faces.So, in the context of Zambrano, by all means please write away, the Commission will be more than happy to waste its time to remind you that under the directive you have no case. (there is nothing worse than using smiley faces to comments that are completely wrong. Its like you are accepting stupidity)

Yeah, economic problems = the most vunerable in society, normally the immigrant, being screwed. not funny. The state wll possibly take its revenge on those who claim social as funded by our friends in europe, when they try to apply for citizenship. social welfare will be cut even further. Jobs will be tight and in light of chen, its unlikely that the parent of a irish citizen child could successfully invoke treaty rights in other countries. If things get really bad in europe or ireland (i doubt it) we will see how the ecj's notions are put to the test.

Show how, in light of the last couple of cases, the Commission seem to be very sympathetic to Ireland on this particular issue. Our friends the british would step in. the danes too, the french might make an issue to. wow, thats alot of votes in council.It also helps that the Germans were livid over Zambrano. hmm, amendments to the treaty perhaps(unlikely but the threat is there - at this point i am speculating the threat but not the support)

Simply to balance things
One advantage is that there will be no more frivolous asylum claims. (genuine asylum seekers i have no hostitility towards) I wonder if the members states were allowed to stop providing accommodation service (not allowed under eu law - at this would be inhumane regardless of one's claim) how many economic migrants would come under the pretence of asylum (no doubt there would be some, but at least then when caught and can be removed) Other thing to is since eu people won't get jobs here there won't be any more eu treaty claims, or possibly many marriages. the citizenship laws are tightened. so maybe the fears of all this immigration lark raised by member states are unfounded.

Before i get branded the usual dearly beloved crap, the point of the last three paragrpahs was simply to point out one salient fact. Your comment on bankruptcy is not only stupid but tasteless. Making jokes about the economy is a bit thick because you and your family, me, and millions all over europe are seriously affected. But unlike many immigrants, it won't be as bad for me and others.

You said
He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.


Wow he had no criminal record, he should get a medal. did he have a right to work in the first place? i suppose he should get a gold star for paying taxes too? how do you know that he did not deliberately get the wife pregnant? do you know him? in fairness, i would not make such an accusation but at the same time he knew it would help. Sure didn't the Beligans change their laws on citizenship afterwards? Going by ECtHR basis, what age where the girls? Columbian citizen is relevant they could live in Columbia, there asylum case failed, and they did not get subsidiary protection, they would at least be safe (hmm, I won't assume that too much to be honest) poverty is not a ground for the real reason that they went to belgium. It was not like in Chen, where at least I can accept some of the reasons, where the child was only entitled to irish citizenship and would be treated as a foreigner in china.

Now before i get branded the usual dearly beloved crap, if you respond i simply want you to do one thing before that. Ask your self, if this happened in your country, and the continent had a similar legal order as the EU and you never left that country (because you have, you might be more sympathetic), can you can that your country would do the same as what the eu has done? what would your honest attitude be? Are you a hypocrite (your honesty would be respected) or are you genuine? will you answer this question ?

Please Mr grumble you have deviated from the topic of this particular thread by your endless arguments. Kindly start another topic where you can thoroughly discuss/argue about your concerns.

[walrusgumble]

To Walrusgrumble.

Again i support the reasoning behing the CJEU reasoning in ZAmbrano and it make perfect sense.

Mr Zambrano has lived in Belgium for several years. He had not sought to circumvent the immigration rules of Belgium Illicitly. They are a genuine family. He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.

This can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

The 27 members states in the union signed up to the case law binding all members state, and if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate.

27 member states also signed up to the provisions relating to the competence of the european union to act soley in areas that the very same member states conferred rights to do so.

The powers of the union, irrespective of what the union says are only given to the union on the basis of the member states actually agreeing to give that union powers. the future destination of the union lies soley in the power of member states and their people. it is member states who choose the commission . it is the member states who elect the judges.

it did not sign up to a unilateral attempt by the courts to seek more power than it is already given ie zambrano and citizenship and internal matters.

There is , despite the artifical sense, a doctrine of the separation of powers in the union.

You said
can be contrasted with Mrs McCarthy, who has never worked in the UK, and is able to move to another memberstate. Their is no impediment to her movement, and in view of this the judgement was utterly rational. Although it should have made clear in my view, that had she been exercising treaty rights, she would have been able to claim rights.

Where did it say that McCarthy NEVER worked? even if she did work, eu law would not have arise. the court only recongised her british citizenship . it did not want to recongise her irish citizenship because she never really acted as an irish person. (ie only got passport when she wanted to marry) Where did it say that if she had exercised her treaty rights she would have got a claim. you mean if she was working? please point that out. Hey its possible in light of inconsistent rulings of the eu ie uecker and jacques. She did not have similar facts to merit the same treaty as in carpenter as she never even left the uk.

zambrano, yes, its unlikely the child could have relied on chen and move elsewhere. but the treaty still does not state that memeber states have a right to deal with internal matters. in fact it is not allowed. it still interfering with domestic law which it has no right and all the case law that it relied upon was factually substantially different, as in many cases, there was actually some form of exercise of treaty rights by either the child or parent (ie baumbast)

Why treat a adult differently? The reality is, due to economic problems, very few adults of certain means will succeed in going to another member state and succeed on metock and directive 2004/38 EC. why should adults have to uproot their lives in order to do this .by the way in no way am i advocating that member states should treat its own citizens in a certain way, especially where illegals and failed asylum seekers of no genuine history together occurs, thats for the minister -

if they had money and can be self sufficient and if they had married after a long term relationship i would be more sympathetic, the ecj was too arrogant to consider this (it had no problems in the past to decide on matters that were not put to them in the preliminary reference, so why dodge the consideration now?)

while there is nothing in the treaty or legislation that says legal status is required, the same can be said that there is nothing in these provisions that legal status is not required. this is not the fault of the court, and it should be confirmed by legislation or better still treaty (which would thump any pervious caselaw) when that happens there will be no complaint from me.

then, what you have said would be perfectly valid, in my opinion.

You said
if any members state continue to disobey those directive, please write to the commission who will be a position to take a case of such violation and get them penalize, instead of them to fight economic problem they're fighting human being survivals. Bankruptcy is there no shaking mate. :lol

Even after such a long and varied discussion about these cases, you still fail to to understand that Zambrano cases failed on the Directive argument. If the law was properly applied, in my opinion, you would not be all smiley faces.So, in the context of Zambrano, by all means please write away, the Commission will be more than happy to waste its time to remind you that under the directive you have no case. (there is nothing worse than using smiley faces to comments that are completely wrong. Its like you are accepting stupidity)

Yeah, economic problems = the most vunerable in society, normally the immigrant, being screwed. not funny. The state wll possibly take its revenge on those who claim social as funded by our friends in europe, when they try to apply for citizenship. social welfare will be cut even further. Jobs will be tight and in light of chen, its unlikely that the parent of a irish citizen child could successfully invoke treaty rights in other countries. If things get really bad in europe or ireland (i doubt it) we will see how the ecj's notions are put to the test.

Show how, in light of the last couple of cases, the Commission seem to be very sympathetic to Ireland on this particular issue. Our friends the british would step in. the danes too, the french might make an issue to. wow, thats alot of votes in council.It also helps that the Germans were livid over Zambrano. hmm, amendments to the treaty perhaps(unlikely but the threat is there - at this point i am speculating the threat but not the support)

Simply to balance things
One advantage is that there will be no more frivolous asylum claims. (genuine asylum seekers i have no hostitility towards) I wonder if the members states were allowed to stop providing accommodation service (not allowed under eu law - at this would be inhumane regardless of one's claim) how many economic migrants would come under the pretence of asylum (no doubt there would be some, but at least then when caught and can be removed) Other thing to is since eu people won't get jobs here there won't be any more eu treaty claims, or possibly many marriages. the citizenship laws are tightened. so maybe the fears of all this immigration lark raised by member states are unfounded.

Before i get branded the usual dearly beloved crap, the point of the last three paragrpahs was simply to point out one salient fact. Your comment on bankruptcy is not only stupid but tasteless. Making jokes about the economy is a bit thick because you and your family, me, and millions all over europe are seriously affected. But unlike many immigrants, it won't be as bad for me and others.

You said
He did not deliberately get his wife to concieve Jessicca and Deigo, so as to secure Belgian citizenship and put themselves in position of rights.
He had no criminal record, has worked and paid tax, and his belgian children attend school there. They are fully integrated in Belgian society.
What meaning would Union Citizenship have, if people in those situation are removed.

There fact that his children can claim Colombian citizenship is irrelevent, neither does it make them less of a Belgian cITIZEN. They are citizenship, and the fact they could acquire another one or not, is not determinative of their legal status.


Wow he had no criminal record, he should get a medal. did he have a right to work in the first place? i suppose he should get a gold star for paying taxes too? how do you know that he did not deliberately get the wife pregnant? do you know him? in fairness, i would not make such an accusation but at the same time he knew it would help. Sure didn't the Beligans change their laws on citizenship afterwards? Going by ECtHR basis, what age where the girls? Columbian citizen is relevant they could live in Columbia, there asylum case failed, and they did not get subsidiary protection, they would at least be safe (hmm, I won't assume that too much to be honest) poverty is not a ground for the real reason that they went to belgium. It was not like in Chen, where at least I can accept some of the reasons, where the child was only entitled to irish citizenship and would be treated as a foreigner in china.

Now before i get branded the usual dearly beloved crap, if you respond i simply want you to do one thing before that. Ask your self, if this happened in your country, and the continent had a similar legal order as the EU and you never left that country (because you have, you might be more sympathetic), can you can that your country would do the same as what the eu has done? what would your honest attitude be? Are you a hypocrite (your honesty would be respected) or are you genuine? will you answer this question ?

Please Mr grumble you have deviated from the topic of this particular thread by your endless arguments. Kindly start another topic where you can thoroughly discuss/argue about your concerns.

I am responding to comments directed at me. This discussion was not started by me. Comments were made by others and I am responding to them.

[Obie]

Walrusgrumble, you have to understand that the CJEU, actually created the term ''Purely internal matters'' in their judgement in Morson and jhangan i think, if i can remember correctly. This phrase is nowhere to be found in the treaty..

I believe once you accept that the CJEU has the power to interpret EU LAW, and accept that, they are in fact the most superior interpreter, and that the commission is the guardian of the treaty, then any argument on how or what way they should deal with a question they faced at preliminary ruling fails.

The courts set case law, and now and again, depending on the changes in the community and in futherance of the agenda of the Union as a whole, they could modify, expand on or retract a previous case law. This is what they did in Zambrano. They have the authority to do this, because if they did not, all the memberstate could simply say, we are not going
to adopt this as we don't believe you have jurisdiction in this area. None so far has said so. Even the most fascist danes have not gone as far as that, despite their constant moaning. The furtherest they went was seeking to assasinate Mr Zambrano's good character, during their submission, pre-judgement. The only person who has question this ruling and its legitimacy is you. The Irish justice minister seem to accept it, and sought to follow it to the letter and spirit.

If any member state fail to abide by it, they can be reported to the commission, who has the roles as guardian of the treaty, they have the jurisdiction, to send a reasoned opinion to that member state, and if they fail to comply, infringement proceeding will be initiated.

[Muttsnuts]

The Zambrano case was an Article 234 reference so the relevant Court in Belgium obviously were of the opinion that the matter involved an issue of EU Law. Obviously the Court itself and I belive the Advocate General didn't have any issues with jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Zambrano is a special case, as the EU Citizen(s) in question was unable to exercise their free movement rights being so young, so that the cross border element was not present. I think that the judgement is both a common sense decision and is a correct interpretation of the spirit of the Treaties. The concept of purely internal situation has been gradually eroded by case law in other areas of EU Law anyway as seen by cases on EU Competition Law, etc.

In Ireland's case, it is to be welcomed as there was very little in the way of clear rules under national legislation for parents of Irish Citizens. Parents of Irish Citizens who didn't come under IBC scheme were generally allowed to remain with their children but applications took a long time to resolve and no clear rules exist. At least with Zambrano (once all of the issues are teased out) there may be more certainty for parents of Irish Children as to whether or not they will be given a right to remain in the State.

[ImmigrationLawyer]

The Irish gov very deliberately didn't clarify it's policies so as not to encourage people to "take advantage" as they would have seen it. I'm sure a lot of parents of Irish children left the State because they were under the impression they had no entitlement to residency.

[Morrisj]

@Wals u r really stupid 4real,am glad someone already pointed out how u divert from topics with endless and blind arguments.U look for every possible way to criticise zambrano.U were really happy to point out d stance of d Danish Govt(which was the main topic) and i asked,would u like to be deprived,instead of answering yes or no,u came up with ur bollocks stories.Ur tools for criticising Zambrano are 1 the Adults are been discriminated by the compulsory requirement of movement to benefit from the Eu Law.

[Morrisj]

ur 2nd tool is the ECJ interfered with domestic laws rewarding illegals,false asylum claims with bogus stories like juju.Now making ur sharp tools blunt,check out how blunt ur tools are respectively.
1.As i said minors can't move on their own,they are still under their parents whether union citizens or non eu citizen,as far as the minors are union citizens themselves,the status,citizenship,race,nationality of their parents should be disregarded to avoid 2nd class union citizens i.e union citizens with

[walrusgumble]

Walrusgrumble, you have to understand that the CJEU, actually created the term ''Purely internal matters'' in their judgement in Morson and jhangan i think, if i can remember correctly. This phrase is nowhere to be found in the treaty..

I believe once you accept that the CJEU has the power to interpret EU LAW, and accept that, they are in fact the most superior interpreter, and that the commission is the guardian of the treaty, then any argument on how or what way they should deal with a question they faced at preliminary ruling fails.

The courts set case law, and now and again, depending on the changes in the community and in futherance of the agenda of the Union as a whole, they could modify, expand on or retract a previous case law. This is what they did in Zambrano. They have the authority to do this, because if they did not, all the memberstate could simply say, we are not going
to adopt this as we don't believe you have jurisdiction in this area. None so far has said so. Even the most fascist danes have not gone as far as that, despite their constant moaning. The furtherest they went was seeking to assasinate Mr Zambrano's good character, during their submission, pre-judgement. The only person who has question this ruling and its legitimacy is you. The Irish justice minister seem to accept it, and sought to follow it to the letter and spirit.

If any member state fail to abide by it, they can be reported to the commission, who has the roles as guardian of the treaty, they have the jurisdiction, to send a reasoned opinion to that member state, and if they fail to comply, infringement proceeding will be initiated.

Point out in the Treaty where is says that the Union has power to rule on ALL ISSUES. Purely INTERNAL RULE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE COURT, IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TREATY AS PER THE MEMBER STATES.

The reason why you think that its not in the treaty is because you are blind.

[Morrisj]

union citizens with parents that r union citizens themselves/union citizens with non eu parents.The zambrano ruling has a such a good effect on the welfare of children(union citizens) and a balanced right to avoid 2nd class union citizens.now tell me,can a child under the age of 18 go to d shop to get ciggarette?or even go to d club e.t.c?absolutely not but Adults(18+) can do those things. 4 ur tool number 2,I repeat some non eu spouses of Eu citizens were also illegal with false claims so whats the diff?

[Obie]

Point out in the Treaty where is says that the Union has power to rule on ALL ISSUES. Purely INTERNAL RULE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE COURT, IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TREATY AS PER THE MEMBER STATES.

The reason why you think that its not in the treaty is because you are blind.

Kindly point out in the treaty where it states that the court cannot interfere.

If the court finds out a national provision, or national competent area has a potential to breach a provision of the treaty. They have the power to overturn it or declare it incompatible with community law.
This is more or less what they did in Zambrano.

In all circumstances EU law rein supreme over national provision.

I think i have spent too much time on this topic and discussion, i shall not be commenting from now on. I have made my position clear, within the bounds of the law.

The courts have jurisdiction, end of story. They forced Ireland to do what they should have done many years ago.

[walrusgumble]

Point out in the Treaty where is says that the Union has power to rule on ALL ISSUES. Purely INTERNAL RULE WAS NOT CREATED BY THE COURT, IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TREATY AS PER THE MEMBER STATES.

The reason why you think that its not in the treaty is because you are blind.

Kindly point out in the treaty where it states that the court cannot interfere.

If the court finds out a national provision, or national competent area has a potential to breach a provision of the treaty. They have the power to overturn it or declare it incompatible with community law.
This is more or less what they did in Zambrano.

In all circumstances EU law rein supreme over national provision.

I think i have spent too much time on this topic and discussion, i shall not be commenting from now on. I have made my position clear, within the bounds of the law.

The courts have jurisdiction, end of story. They forced Ireland to do what they should have done many years ago.

Ah, why, afraid you will have little to say afterwards?

That is if the union has competence and juridiction to rule.

there is nothing in the treaty that expressly and literally says what the courts said in zambrano. much to even the disagreement with the other insitutions (who actually make the law) the court applied their own liberal interpretation of article 20 in order to achieve the results

This, in constitutional terms is judicial activism, where the judge becoems the law maker, which causes legal uncertainty, a breach of its jurisdiction under separation of powers , and leads to subjective and varied interpretations from one case to another on what article 20 is.


In all circstances? you will be very sad to learn that the eu has limited jurisdiction in all areas . it has limited competence in foreign policy and sweet talk to all in areas of criminal law and justice.

It has exclusive competence in areas like common policy eg argiculture. it has shared competence with member states in areas like the internal market and free movement of person. you are obviously not aware of the doctrines of propertionality and subsidiarity.

but yes, where the court rules, it final. that is the problem, what happens when it had no power to rule on certain areas. there is no check and balance on the court (well there is, one can over rule them by amending the treaty)Ah, if you ever become an eu citizen you will understand.

Very quickly

Articles 1-6 tfeu, article 247 tfeu articles 1-6 teu (espeically article 5) ,
The court what the treaty provides. the creators of the treaty and the agenda setters are the people and the member states who confer competence and jurisdiction on the union to act on their behalf by specifying same on the treaty. where the treaty is silent, its not within the treaty

In relation to freemovement, the relevant issue here, articles 45-57 tfeu, directive 2004/38 ec and regulation 1612/68. freemovement mean the right to move to another country. that is the basis of acceptance by member states. internal rule is not a policy created by the courts, it is a fundamental princple implied clearly by the treaty and acknowledged by the court. it has been consistently accepted by the court from jacques 1997 right up to mccarthy in relation to adults

All of these case some form of movement or exercise is required, no matter how liberal as seen in carpetener (where he did actually go to another eu state to do business)

Even zambrano etc acknolwedge that no rights can be obtained from these.

The only exception to internal rule is singh and eind, where the person exercised their rights. (good judgment can't complain)



See what old articles 17 and 18 ec say and look at post lisbon article 20 and 21 tfeu. all say the right to "move." It refers to the council to do things eg bring legislation, which it has not done . nothing there about the courts (that is not to say they can't interpret it, but its clear that they did so completely ignoring what the literal words and original intention of the drafters). They are subject to conditions and limitations of the treaty (ie public policy etc derrogations in the likes of article 45(3) which is irrelevant as its impossible to impose against a citizen, and secondary legislation eg directive 2004/38 ec. They are the only obvious other provisions in the treaty.

its only applied as last resort to children, clearly not to adults as per mccarthy. its fundamentally clear that the court were influenced by the fundamental rights charter (which is not in the treaty but it appears that it enjoys supremacy)

The cases you like to refer to are substantially factually different (chen included) to zambrano in that few of them actually involved family reunfication and right of residence of third country nationals. they involved rights of equal treatement of citizens who already moved to another eu state or their eu parents did (avello) - some like bidar and d'hoop ie right to equal treatment to social and student grants are now over ruled via forster and article 24 of directive 2004/38 3c.

That is a very rough sketch, looking forward to hearing from you

[walrusgumble]

union citizens with parents that r union citizens themselves/union citizens with non eu parents.The zambrano ruling has a such a good effect on the welfare of children(union citizens) and a balanced right to avoid 2nd class union citizens.now tell me,can a child under the age of 18 go to d shop to get ciggarette?or even go to d club e.t.c?absolutely not but Adults(18+) can do those things. 4 ur tool number 2,I repeat some non eu spouses of Eu citizens were also illegal with false claims so whats the diff?

Depends what country actually lol. (ie fags and booze)

All I am saying is, eu law only affect me, as an Irish citizen, when i move to another eu state.

if the courts actually said, look, you are a citizen eu one at that. you are not exercising your eu rights therefore, i can't help you you are at the mercy of the national courts. but, as an exception, and because of your situation, i want to apply the fundamental charter like the echr but be more liberal, i will grant your parents status. and not come out with the bollox it did about citizenship, then, I would not complain about zambrano.

Why should children be treated differently to adults? the whole original purpose of freemovement was to ensure internal market/economics was improving, after all. The point, the ecj are full of shite and their interpretation of article 20 is unprincpled and subjective, and not foreseeable and certain.

the difference between the spouse and the child? the spouse at least moved to another eu country and certaintly could not be an internal matter.

if the spouse did not , like mccarthy, eu law does not apply