- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Can you pls confirm to us how long it took your friend to recieve her certificate of application. Pls help, for the benefit of those who are facing same issue.ZambranoCase wrote:Hello Forum,
This website was recommended to me by a friend and I will like the opinion of members. I recently got a Stamp 4 as the parent of an Irish child based on the Zambrano law, I was under the impression that since this right was under the auspices of the EU, no fees would be attached. However, I had to pay €150 and was told I have to pay for re-entry visas if I travelled out of the state.
A friend of mine who got her residence in the UK under the Zambrano law got her own for free and doesnt need to pay for re-entry visas if she travels out of the UK. However, I think the UK gives a more favourable interpretation of Zambrano because it states in her approval letter that she is entitiled to work/study/start a business and claim social welfare immediately, they even go further by saying absences from the state does not affect her residency in the state as it is in the interest of the child for her to have contact with her parent. In other words, as stated in her approval letter she can make an application for extension of her residence outside of the UK.
I asked the Immigration officer and he said it was up to the state to determine the interpretation of the Zambrano law and the state classifies eligible people as same as previous cases of the Irish born child scheme.
Does anyone here have any knowledge about the category Zambrano sucessful applicants come under or do we have to wait till someone takes the case to the ECJ for adjudication?
Were those UK laws more under normal UK immigration laws as oppose to EU laws?ZambranoCase wrote:Hello Forum,
This website was recommended to me by a friend and I will like the opinion of members. I recently got a Stamp 4 as the parent of an Irish child based on the Zambrano law, I was under the impression that since this right was under the auspices of the EU, no fees would be attached. However, I had to pay €150 and was told I have to pay for re-entry visas if I travelled out of the state.
A friend of mine who got her residence in the UK under the Zambrano law got her own for free and doesnt need to pay for re-entry visas if she travels out of the UK. However, I think the UK gives a more favourable interpretation of Zambrano because it states in her approval letter that she is entitiled to work/study/start a business and claim social welfare immediately, they even go further by saying absences from the state does not affect her residency in the state as it is in the interest of the child for her to have contact with her parent. In other words, as stated in her approval letter she can make an application for extension of her residence outside of the UK.
I asked the Immigration officer and he said it was up to the state to determine the interpretation of the Zambrano law and the state classifies eligible people as same as previous cases of the Irish born child scheme.
Does anyone here have any knowledge about the category Zambrano sucessful applicants come under or do we have to wait till someone takes the case to the ECJ for adjudication?
I believe the situation is that there is no charge for registration of the EU FAM Card appiled for under Directive 2004/38. However, Zambrano applications fall under the TFEU directly so that there is no rule against charging for GNIB Card for the Zambrano folks. It's not fair and certainly not within the spirit of the Directive but it is at the current time, a correct interpretation of the law.ZambranoCase wrote:Hello Forum,
This website was recommended to me by a friend and I will like the opinion of members. I recently got a Stamp 4 as the parent of an Irish child based on the Zambrano law, I was under the impression that since this right was under the auspices of the EU, no fees would be attached. However, I had to pay €150 and was told I have to pay for re-entry visas if I travelled out of the state.
A friend of mine who got her residence in the UK under the Zambrano law got her own for free and doesnt need to pay for re-entry visas if she travels out of the UK. However, I think the UK gives a more favourable interpretation of Zambrano because it states in her approval letter that she is entitiled to work/study/start a business and claim social welfare immediately, they even go further by saying absences from the state does not affect her residency in the state as it is in the interest of the child for her to have contact with her parent. In other words, as stated in her approval letter she can make an application for extension of her residence outside of the UK.
I asked the Immigration officer and he said it was up to the state to determine the interpretation of the Zambrano law and the state classifies eligible people as same as previous cases of the Irish born child scheme.
Does anyone here have any knowledge about the category Zambrano sucessful applicants come under or do we have to wait till someone takes the case to the ECJ for adjudication?
You may be right, but you say the spirit of the Directive. You can't impose obligations of the Directive on a Member State, when its clear that the applicant does not comply with that Directive.Muttsnuts wrote:I believe the situation is that there is no charge for registration of the EU FAM Card appiled for under Directive 2004/38. However, Zambrano applications fall under the TFEU directly so that there is no rule against charging for GNIB Card for the Zambrano folks. It's not fair and certainly not within the spirit of the Directive but it is at the current time, a correct interpretation of the law.ZambranoCase wrote:Hello Forum,
This website was recommended to me by a friend and I will like the opinion of members. I recently got a Stamp 4 as the parent of an Irish child based on the Zambrano law, I was under the impression that since this right was under the auspices of the EU, no fees would be attached. However, I had to pay €150 and was told I have to pay for re-entry visas if I travelled out of the state.
A friend of mine who got her residence in the UK under the Zambrano law got her own for free and doesnt need to pay for re-entry visas if she travels out of the UK. However, I think the UK gives a more favourable interpretation of Zambrano because it states in her approval letter that she is entitiled to work/study/start a business and claim social welfare immediately, they even go further by saying absences from the state does not affect her residency in the state as it is in the interest of the child for her to have contact with her parent. In other words, as stated in her approval letter she can make an application for extension of her residence outside of the UK.
I asked the Immigration officer and he said it was up to the state to determine the interpretation of the Zambrano law and the state classifies eligible people as same as previous cases of the Irish born child scheme.
Does anyone here have any knowledge about the category Zambrano sucessful applicants come under or do we have to wait till someone takes the case to the ECJ for adjudication?
Obie wrote:I don't agree with that interpretation. Directive 2004/38EC is secondary legislation that was implemented to give effect to rights under the treaty. Zambrano in intended to give effect to rights under the treaty. There are no material difference bween the two sources of rights as they both originated directly or indirectly from the treaty, except i am bullshitting, i think the Irish are wrong to charge a fee, if such Fees are not charged to Irish Citizens
walrusgumble wrote:
You may be right, but you say the spirit of the Directive. You can't impose obligations of the Directive on a Member State, when its clear that the applicant does not comply with that Directive.
I know what you said, but you can't invoke a spirit into the Directive that was not clearly intended.Muttsnuts wrote:walrusgumble wrote:
You may be right, but you say the spirit of the Directive. You can't impose obligations of the Directive on a Member State, when its clear that the applicant does not comply with that Directive.
I mention that its against the spirit of the Directive as Directive 2004/38 is commonly called the Citizenship directive, it's meant to contain/explain all of the conditions on free movement.
I am not for one minute suggesting that Zambrano applications fall under the auspices of the Directive as the Directive does not provide for such a scenario. As you are aware, the Zambrano judgement refers to Article 20 of the TFEU as the basis of the right of the non-EU parent to reside in the dependent Child's country of Nationality.
What is your point?, Article 46 has no direct effect.,but it seeks to implement provisions under Article 45 only. Article 45TFEU clearly and only deals with WORKERS, Not the case as per Zambrano. The Parliament acts in co-operation with the Council of Ministers, why did you exclude mentioning Council?Obie wrote:If you read Article 46 of the Treaty, you will notice that a power is conferred on the European Parliament, to make regulations or Directives, in order to give effect to the rights under article 45. Which is the right to move and work within the community.
The directive is a secondary legislation adopted to give effect to rights under the treaty.
This is not a topic that merit arguement, it is plain and clear.
Well, the judgement states that Mr. Zambrano should be allowed to work SO THAT HE IS ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS UNION CITIZEN CHILDREN.agniukas wrote:just a thought, doesn't it states that under zambrano parents have to be able to support their children financially without becoming a burden on a state...
if that is a case, and the person cannot afford to pay 150 euros for the GNIB card, how can they support their children? (mind you that 150 euros is a once off payment for a 3 year card)
Good Questions, but, lets get real here, if it was under the normal Irish Rules, the family would always somehow be able to cough up the €150. They would get a lend of it from someone and pay back later. Many have private lawyers (I am of this view because Legal Aid Don't cover High Court Cases) , so €150 is hardly going to prevent them to register. So why treat this registration fee, Assuming that the fee is legal, any different.MSH wrote:The Zambrano-judgement explicitly states the right of residence afforded to Mr. Zambrano derives directly from art. 20 and NOT Directive 2004/38/EC.
HOWEVER, what if a third-country parent don't have the money to pay for their residence permit under Zambrano? Will they then be denied a permit by the Irish authorities and will they therefore have to leave the territory of the Union with their Union citizen child(ren)?
If I was living in Ireland and I found myself in a position where I would have to apply for residence based on Zambrano I would contact a legal service and have them help me draw up a letter to the Irish authorities in which I would clearly state that I refuse to pay for my Zambrano residence permit since I do not have the financial means to do so and since it its unlawful anyway for this extra demand to be attached to a RIGHT my Union citizen clid(ren) already have according to community law.
MSH.
And the chances for most of these parents getting a job to do that, in this country and , and slim and none. To suggest otherwise is wishful thinking.MSH wrote:Well, the judgement states that Mr. Zambrano should be allowed to work SO THAT HE IS ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS UNION CITIZEN CHILDREN.agniukas wrote:just a thought, doesn't it states that under zambrano parents have to be able to support their children financially without becoming a burden on a state...
if that is a case, and the person cannot afford to pay 150 euros for the GNIB card, how can they support their children? (mind you that 150 euros is a once off payment for a 3 year card)
How can someone pay for a residence and work-permit which they need in order to make money, BEFORE they even have it in their hand?
Makes no sense to me.
Also, where does the Zambrano-judgement state the right to remain on Union territory is only reserved for children of WORKING third-country parents?
Regards,
MSH.
It makes no sense?MSH wrote:Well, the judgement states that Mr. Zambrano should be allowed to work SO THAT HE IS ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS UNION CITIZEN CHILDREN.agniukas wrote:just a thought, doesn't it states that under zambrano parents have to be able to support their children financially without becoming a burden on a state...
if that is a case, and the person cannot afford to pay 150 euros for the GNIB card, how can they support their children? (mind you that 150 euros is a once off payment for a 3 year card)
How can someone pay for a residence and work-permit which they need in order to make money, BEFORE they even have it in their hand?
Makes no sense to me.
Also, where does the Zambrano-judgement state the right to remain on Union territory is only reserved for children of WORKING third-country parents?
Regards,
MSH.
[b]Article 46 States[/b] wrote:
Article 46
(ex Article 40 TEC)
The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives or make regulations setting out the measures required to bring about freedom of movement for workers, as defined in Article 45, in particular:
The only reason why the citizen directive does not apply to Zambrano is because there is no movement, but the principles which determines whether or not payment for documents issued under the provision of the directive or treaty should be required, applies mutatis mutandis to Zambrano as well, otherwise the state will be in breach of community law, and in particular the treaty, by acting in a discriminatory manner, ie requiring payment to be made for the issuing of document, which is not applicable to other EU citizens( Reverse Discrimination) or the Spouse of Irish Citizens ( Direct Discrimination).[b]Article 20 States[/b] wrote:
Article 20
(ex Article 17 TEC)
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:
(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;EN C 83/56 Official Journal of the European Union 30.3.2010
(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;
(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.[/b]
Obie, your often blatant ignorance of EU law is offensive. Where the hell did you get the moderator job? . Why don't you contact Solvit to see if they think otherwise. Better still, go an read a basic text book on EU law.Obie wrote:Walrusgrumble, i don't mean any offence, but it will be hugely helpful if you could study the treaty or at least give a quick glance of its content, in order to further enhance your knowledge regarding the source of the authority which give rise to the provision of dircetive and treaty.
Directive 2004/38EC is not an ends to itself, it was implemented to give effect to rights under the treaty.
[b]Article 46 States[/b] wrote:
Article 46
(ex Article 40 TEC)
The European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives or make regulations setting out the measures required to bring about freedom of movement for workers, as defined in Article 45, in particular:The only reason why the citizen directive does not apply to Zambrano is because there is no movement, but the principles which determines whether or not payment for documents issued under the provision of the directive or treaty should be required, applies mutatis mutandis to Zambrano as well, otherwise the state will be in breach of community law, and in particular the treaty, by acting in a discriminatory manner, ie requiring payment to be made for the issuing of document, which is not applicable to other EU citizens( Reverse Discrimination) or the Spouse of Irish Citizens ( Direct Discrimination).[b]Article 20 States[/b] wrote:
Article 20
(ex Article 17 TEC)
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:
(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;EN C 83/56 Official Journal of the European Union 30.3.2010
(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;
(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.[/b]
It is important to note that reverse discrimination or any other form of discrimination ()Overt or covert) is prohibited by the treaty, especially if it is geared against people covered by the provisions of it.
In Ireland, chen parents don't pay for issuance of resident card. The situation of chen benificiaries and zambrano, can be easily assimilated.
Actually, I think you're wrong. A Zambrano type situation was not intended on the strict wording of the Directive, but that is only because it was not contemplated while drafting the Directive. It's clear that the Directive is meant to be a codification of the principles on free movement exhibitied in the TFEU. The ECJ in deciding Zambrano based it on Article 20 of TFEU becuase they could not base it on the Directive, but that does not alter the ECJ's obvious opinion that the Zambrano type scenario should have been covered by the Directive and therefore, came within the spirrit of the Directive.walrusgumble wrote: I know what you said, but you can't invoke a spirit into the Directive that was not clearly intended.
Zambrano says nothing that assists the op in the question that still needs answering. Also, there are now question marks as to whether Zambrano applies in general or whether it applies to only where both parents are non eu's.
1. You can't comment on what the Member States did and did not intend when they decided to enact Directive 2004 /38 EC. This is because, as the Courts themselves consistently point out, the minutes and preparation documents are not published. Even the Courts don't pretend that they can or do. The interpretation given, comes solely from the Courts, themselves. They have no power to legislate. The fact that in the Zambrano case, a substantial number of States (ie States of genuine standing) and the COMMISSION itself argue against the applicant's clearly suggests that the view held by you is not one shared by the law makers. Going by what the Directive actually says, its clear what the directive deals with. The fact that another Member State, one not known to be entirely bad boys when it comes to Free movement, has put questions to the Court, regarding fees and what the Treaty and Directive would say, is another clear indication that is not a black and white matter. There is doubt, that is all that's being said.Muttsnuts wrote:Actually, I think you're wrong. A Zambrano type situation was not intended on the strict wording of the Directive, but that is only because it was not contemplated while drafting the Directive. It's clear that the Directive is meant to be a codification of the principles on free movement exhibitied in the TFEU. The ECJ in deciding Zambrano based it on Article 20 of TFEU becuase they could not base it on the Directive, but that does not alter the ECJ's obvious opinion that the Zambrano type scenario should have been covered by the Directive and therefore, came within the spirrit of the Directive.walrusgumble wrote: I know what you said, but you can't invoke a spirit into the Directive that was not clearly intended.
Zambrano says nothing that assists the op in the question that still needs answering. Also, there are now question marks as to whether Zambrano applies in general or whether it applies to only where both parents are non eu's.
In Ireland, there has been no distinction been made in cases where both parents are non-EU nationals and where only one parent is a non-EU National. In both of these types of cases, Zambrano applications are being granted by DoJ. In addition, where the couple has split, the DoJ has requested access and maintenance orders from the District Courts, so it seems that the DoJ is taking a lenient view of the judgement.
It's complete bollox for you to say that, because when I asked for the information, it was a question and no more. I was not making a point to support any contention. Please either (a) learn to read or (b) if you can read, comment on what was actually said. I don't hear too many people on this site, (who were not students or work permit holders) who actually got a decision whether yes or no.Morrisj wrote:@Wals am really glad u were sensible enough to know dependency is more than financing the child.For ur comment about what the Dept are deciding regarding cases where one parent is non eu and the other parent is eu/Irish and how many posters here has succeeded is a complete bollock why?b'cos if the Dept has already granted residency to similar cases in Dublin like the Crawleys,are they gona grant some and leave some?or just revoke the residence permit given out already?Is this Deccie's case an Irish case?