Link to Dereci Judgment

[walrusgumble]

First of all,most people under stamp1,2,3 has upgraded,secondly most cases were withdrawn from the court and they have been granted residency(those in the state) again those citizenship granted this year,would still pending for ages if Shatter didnt come in.Dermot Ahern would have done worse than this,you know that well and to my understanding,you like the Dermot's way.Dereci Judgment didnot mention minor children or parents,it was about non national joining Adult Union citizen,yet Mr dereci won by marria

Firstly , Very very very few on Stamp 2's got upgraded, but some did. (Stamp 2 is excluded), its a minor point

I have acknowledged they did get upgraded, so why repeat what I have said?

Secondly,
Most cases have NOT being withdrawn from the court, as a matter of fact! There are quite a number still waiting for the December list, from what I hear.

There are threads on this site still asking about when they will get a decision, despite being on all fours with Zambrano

Thirdly
As for the citizenship, no, you are wrong. Decisions on most of them had being decided and communicated to the Secretary and Minister before Shatter came in. They were simply waiting for a scribble from the Minister. Nice try sunny boy.

Demott Aherne is what was wrong with politics, trust me, he was a gobshite in every way.

Fourthly

Here is what the Courts were asked in Dercei and Co

a) Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country - whose spouse and minor children are Union citizens - residence in the Member State of residence of the spouse and children, who are nationals of that Member State, even in the case where those Union citizens are not dependent on the national of a non-member country for their subsistence? (Dereci case)

(b) Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country - whose spouse is a Union citizen - residence in the Member State of residence of that spouse, who is a national of that Member State, even in the case where that Union citizen is not dependent on the national of a non-member country for his or her subsistence? (Heiml and Maduike cases)

(c) Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country - who has reached the age of majority and whose mother is a Union citizen - residence in the Member State of residence of the mother, who is a national of that Member State, even in the case where it is not the Union citizen who is dependent on the national of a non-member country for her subsistence but rather that national of a non-member country who is dependent on the Union citizen for his subsistence? (Kokollari case)

(d) Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant to a national of a non-member country - who has reached the age of majority and whose father is a Union citizen - residence in the Member State of residence of the father, who is a national of that Member State, even in the case where it is not the Union citizen who is dependent on the national of a non-member country for his subsistence but rather the national of a non-member country who receives subsistence support from the Union citizen? (Stevic case)

If any of the questions under 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
Does the obligation on the Member States under Article 20 TFEU to grant residence to nationals of non-member countries relate to a right of residence which follows directly from European Union law, or is it sufficient that the Member State grants the right of residence to the national of a non-member country on the basis of its law establishing such a right?

(a) If, according to the answer to Question 2, a right of residence exists by virtue of European Union law:
Under what conditions, exceptionally, does the right of residence which follows from European Union law not exist, or under what conditions may the national of a non-member country be deprived of the right of residence?

(b) If, according to the answer to Question 2, it should be sufficient for the national of a non-member country to be granted the right of residence on the basis of the law of the Member State concerned which establishes such a right:

Under what conditions may the national of a non-member country be denied the right of residence, notwithstanding an obligation in principle on the Member State to enable that person to acquire residence?
In the event that Article 20 TFEU does not prevent a national of a non-member country, as in the situation of Mr Dereci, from being denied residence in the Member State:

Does Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, drawn up by of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, or Article 41 1 of the Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, which, according to Article 62 thereof, forms an integral part of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, preclude, in a case such as that of Mr Dereci, the subjection of the initial entry of a Turkish national to stricter national rules than those which previously applied to the initial entry of Turkish nationals, even though those national provisions which had facilitated the initial entry did not enter into force until after the date on which the aforementioned provisions concerning the association with Turkey entered into force in the Member State in question?

The case lost on EU law, law you lot rely on. It won on a separate provision, under a Treaty between the EU and Turkey, a Treaty that has no relevance to you lot. But it did clarify EU law since Zambrano

Facts :

Mr Dereci, who is a Turkish national, entered Austria illegally and married an Austrian national by whom he had three children who are also Austrian nationals and who are still minors. Mr Dereci currently resides with his family in Austria. Mr Maduike, a Nigerian national, also entered Austria illegally and married an Austrian national with whom he currently resides in Austria.
By contrast, Mrs Heiml, a Sri Lankan national, married an Austrian national before entering Austria legally where she currently lives with her husband, despite the subsequent expiry of her residence permit.

The most relevant answer for many people was (and taking into account children, but realising that its the parent's who determine the child's life),

The first question

37 The first question must be understood as seeking to determine, in essence, whether European Union law and, in particular, the provisions concerning citizenship of the Union, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant residence within its territory to a third country national, although that third country national wishes to reside with a family member who is a European Union citizen, resident in that Member State and a national of that Member State, who has never exercised his right to free movement and who is not maintained by that third country national.

Observations submitted to the Court

38 The Austrian, Danish, German, Irish, Netherlands, Polish and United Kingdom Governments and the European Commission consider that the provisions of European Union law concerning citizenship of the Union do not preclude a Member State from refusing to grant a right of residence to a third country national in situations such as those in the main proceedings.

39 According to those governments and to the Commission, firstly, Directive 2004/38 does not apply to the disputes in the main proceedings, given that the Union citizens concerned have not exercised their right to free movement and, secondly, the provisions of the TFEU concerning citizenship of the Union do not apply either in so far as the disputes concern purely internal situations that possess no connecting factors to European Union law.

40 In essence, they consider that the principles laid down in Ruiz Zambrano apply to very exceptional situations in which the application of a national measure would lead to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of the status of citizen of the Union. In this case, the events which gave rise to the disputes in the main proceedings differ substantially from those which gave rise to the aforementioned judgment in so far as the Union citizens concerned were not at risk of having to leave the territory of the Union and thus of being denied the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union. Similarly, according to the Commission, neither is there a barrier to the exercise of the right conferred on Union citizens to freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the Member States.

41 Mr Dereci, on the other hand, considers that European Union law must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant residence within its territory to a third country national, although that national wishes to reside with his wife and three children who are European Union citizens resident in that Member State and who are nationals of that Member State.

42 According to Mr Dereci, the question whether there is a cross-border situation or not is irrelevant. In that regard, Article 20 TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that the question to be taken into consideration is whether the Union citizen is denied the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status. This is the case for Mr Dereci’s children in so far as they are maintained by him, and the effectiveness of that maintenance is likely to be compromised if they were subject to expulsion from Austria.

43 Lastly, the Greek Government considers that developments in the case-law of the Court impose an obligation to be guided, by analogy, by the provisions of European Union law, in particular by the provisions of Directive 2004/38, and therefore to grant residence to the applicants in the main proceedings, provided the following conditions are satisfied. First of all, the situation of the Union citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement should be similar to that of those who have exercised that same right, which would mean, in this case, that a national and his family members must satisfy the conditions laid down by that directive. Second, the national measures should entail a significant infringement of the right of free movement and residence. Third, national law should not provide at least equivalent protection to the party concerned.

The Court’s reply

– Applicability of Directives 2003/86 and 2004/38

44 It should be noted at the outset that the applicants in the main proceedings are all third country nationals who have applied for the right of residence in a Member State in order to live with their family members who are European Union citizens and who have not exercised their right to free movement within the territory of the Member States.

45 In order to answer the first question, as reformulated by the Court, it is necessary to analyse at the outset whether Directives 2003/86 and 2004/38 are applicable to the applicants in the main proceedings.

46 So far as concerns, first of all, Directive 2003/86, it must be stated that, under Article 1, its purpose is to determine the conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by third country nationals residing lawfully in the territory of the Member States.

47 However, in accordance with Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/86, that directive is not to apply to members of the family of a Union citizen.

48 In so far as the disputes in the main proceedings concern Union citizens who reside in a Member State and their family members who are third country nationals who wish to enter and to reside in that Member State for the purposes of living as a family with those citizens, it must be held that Directive 2006/38 is not applicable to the applicants in the main proceedings.

49 Furthermore, as the Commission has correctly observed, although the proposal for a Council Directive on the right to family reunification ((2000/C 116 E/15), COM(1999)638 final - 1999/0258 (CNS)), submitted by the Commission on 11 January 2000 (OJ C 116 E, p. 66), included within its scope Union citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement, that inclusion was deleted in the course of the legislative process leading to Directive 2003/86.

50 Second, the Court has already had occasion to point out that Directive 2004/38 aims to facilitate the exercise of the primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States that is conferred directly on Union citizens by the Treaty and that it aims in particular to strengthen that right (see Case C‑127/08 Metock and Others [2008] ECR I‑6241, paragraphs 82 and 59, and Case C‑434/09 McCarthy [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 28).

51 As is apparent from paragraphs 24 to 26 of the present judgment, Mrs Heiml, Mr Dereci and Mr Maduike, as spouses of Union citizens, fall within the definition of ‘family member’ in point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38. Similarly, Mr Kokollari and Mrs Stevic, as direct descendants over the age of 21 of Union citizens, are covered by that definition provided that the requirement of being dependent on those citizens is satisfied, pursuant to point 2(c) of Article 2 of that Directive.

52 However, as the referring court observed, Directive 2004/38 does not apply in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

53 Indeed, as provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, that directive applies to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of the directive who accompany them or join them in that Member State (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraph 39).

54 The Court has already had occasion to state that, in accordance with a literal, teleological and contextual interpretation of that provision, a Union citizen, who has never exercised his right of free movement and has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national, is not covered by the concept of ‘beneficiary’ for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, so that that directive is not applicable to him (McCarthy, paragraphs 31 and 39).

55 Similarly, it has been held that, in so far as a Union citizen is not covered by the concept of ‘beneficiary’ for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, their family member is not covered by that concept either, given that the rights conferred by that directive on the family members of a beneficiary of that directive are not autonomous rights of those family members, but derived rights, acquired through their status as members of the beneficiary’s family (see, so far as concerns spouses, McCarthy, paragraph 42, and the case-law cited).

56 Indeed, not all third country nationals derive rights of entry into and residence in a Member State from Directive 2004/38, but only those who are family members, within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of that directive, of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national (Metock and Others, paragraph 73).

57 In the present case, as the Union citizens concerned have never exercised their right to free movement and have always resided in a Member State of which they are nationals, it must be held that they are not covered by the concept ‘beneficiary’ for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, so that that directive is neither applicable to them nor to their family members.

58 It follows that Directives 2003/86 and 2004/38 are not applicable to third country nationals who apply for the right of residence in order to join their European Union citizen family members who have never exercised their right to free movement and who have always resided in the Member State of which they are nationals.

– Applicability of the Treaty provisions concerning citizenship of the Union

59 Notwithstanding the inapplicability to the disputes in the main proceedings of Directives 2003/86 and 2004/38, it is necessary to consider whether the Union citizens concerned by those disputes may rely on the provisions of the Treaty concerning citizenship of the Union.

60 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the Treaty rules governing freedom of movement for persons and the measures adopted to implement them cannot be applied to situations which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by European Union law and which are confined in all relevant respects within a single Member State (see, to that effect, Case C‑212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government [2008] ECR I‑1683, paragraph 33; Metock and Others, paragraph 77 and, McCarthy, paragraph 45).

61 However, the situation of a Union citizen who, like each of the citizens who are family members of the applicants in the main proceedings, has not made use of the right to freedom of movement cannot, for that reason alone, be assimilated to a purely internal situation (see Case C‑403/03 Schempp [2005] ECR I‑6421, paragraph 22, and McCarthy, paragraph 46).

62 Indeed, the Court has stated several times that citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraph 41, and the case-law cited).

63 As nationals of a Member State, family members of the applicants in the main proceedings enjoy the status of Union citizens under Article 20(1) TFEU and may therefore rely on the rights pertaining to that status, including against their Member State of origin (see McCarthy, paragraph 48).

64 On this basis, the Court has held that Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of that status (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraph 42).

65 Indeed, in the case leading to that judgment, the question arose as to whether a refusal to grant a right of residence to a third country national with dependent minor children in the Member State where those children are nationals and reside and a refusal to grant such a person a work permit have such an effect. The Court considered in particular that such a refusal would lead to a situation where those children, who are citizens of the Union, would have to leave the territory of the Union in order to accompany their parents. In those circumstances, those citizens of the Union would, in fact, be unable to exercise the substance of the rights conferred on them by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraphs 43 and 44).

66 It follows that the criterion relating to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of European Union citizen status refers to situations in which the Union citizen has, in fact, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also the territory of the Union as a whole.

67 That criterion is specific in character inasmuch as it relates to situations in which, although subordinate legislation on the right of residence of third country nationals is not applicable, a right of residence may not, exceptionally, be refused to a third country national, who is a family member of a Member State national, as the effectiveness of Union citizenship enjoyed by that national would otherwise be undermined.

68 Consequently, the mere fact that it might appear desirable to a national of a Member State, for economic reasons or in order to keep his family together in the territory of the Union, for the members of his family who do not have the nationality of a Member State to be able to reside with him in the territory of the Union, is not sufficient in itself to support the view that the Union citizen will be forced to leave Union territory if such a right is not granted.

69 That finding is, admittedly, without prejudice to the question whether, on the basis of other criteria, inter alia, by virtue of the right to the protection of family life, a right of residence cannot be refused. However, that question must be tackled in the framework of the provisions on the protection of fundamental rights which are applicable in each case.

– The right to respect for private and family life

70 As a preliminary point, it must be observed that in so far as Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), concerning respect for private and family life, contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by Article 8(1) of the ECHR, the meaning and scope of Article 7 of the Charter are to be the same as those laid down by Article 8(1) of the ECHR, as interpreted by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Case C‑400/10 PPU McB. [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 53).

71 However, it must be borne in mind that the provisions of the Charter are, according to Article 51(1) thereof, addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing European Union law. Under Article 51(2), the Charter does not extend the field of application of European Union law beyond the powers of the Union, and it does not establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to interpret, in the light of the Charter, the law of the European Union within the limits of the powers conferred on it (McB., paragraph 51, see also Joined Cases C-483/09 and C-1/10 Gueye and Salmerón Sánchez [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 69).

72 Thus, in the present case, if the referring court considers, in the light of the circumstances of the disputes in the main proceedings, that the situation of the applicants in the main proceedings is covered by European Union law, it must examine whether the refusal of their right of residence undermines the right to respect for private and family life provided for in Article 7 of the Charter. On the other hand, if it takes the view that that situation is not covered by European Union law, it must undertake that examination in the light of Article 8(1) of the ECHR.

73 All the Member States are, after all, parties to the ECHR which enshrines the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8.

74 In the light of the foregoing observations the answer to the first question is that European Union law and, in particular, its provisions on citizenship of the Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third country national to reside on its territory, where that third country national wishes to reside with a member of his family who is a citizen of the Union residing in the Member State of which he has nationality, who has never exercised his right to freedom of movement, provided that such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a citizen of the Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.


Mr Kokollari, who entered Austria legally at the age of two with his parents who possessed Yugoslav nationality at the time, is 29 years old and states that he is maintained by his mother who is now an Austrian national. He currently resides in Austria. Mrs Stevic, a Serbian national, is 52 years old and has applied for family reunification with her father who has resided in Austria for many years and who obtained Austrian nationality in 2007. She has regularly received monthly support from her father and she claims that he would continue to support her if she resided in Austria. Mrs Stevic currently resides in Serbia with her husband and their three adult children.

[Morrisj]

Everybody is a gobshite,what about yourself?by the way how old are you?you lack maturity and manners.You are contradicting yourself.You know what I rest my argument with you,i am very sure those with intelligent mind can compare our points.You lack understanding,what you trying to act?typing irrelevant stuff and you feel happy about it.Wait a minute is it a co-incidence nobody is accepting your view these days.Posting irrelevant& unacceptable comment will not help you with the fame of fooling yourself

[Morrisj]

Just two questions-How did you know those citizen applications were already approved before Shatter and the high court cases(oh you heard from someone?well tell that person he/she is a lier) You said that is why they are paragraphs in the judgment for you to look at the main stuff-So thats what you normally do?and you come here posting rubbish?my friend go back and read the whole judgment properly to enable you gain perfect understanding of the ruling in Dereci.free yourself from mental slavery will ya?

[walrusgumble]

Everybody is a gobshite,what about yourself?by the way how old are you?you are lack maturity and manners.You are contradicting yourself.You know what I rest my argument with you,i am very sure those with intelligent mind can compare our points.You lack understanding,what you trying to act?typing irrelevant stuff and you feel happy about it.Wait a minute is it a co-incidence nobody is accepting your view these days.Posting irrelevant& unacceptable comment will not help you with the fame of fooling yourself

Where am I contradicting myself? While you are act it point out the irrelevant stuff? (No doubt you will ignore this request)

No body is accepting my view? Who cares? Very few every accepted by views anyway. It must be killing them that they were often wrong. I have being vindicated with my views as far as accuracy is concerned. No body is going to agree with me when the result that I predicted could severely effect them. How are things in Nigeria by the way.

Fooling myself? Eh, no, case law of the past year suggests otherwise.

You think that Dermott Aherne is not a gobshite? Even his pals in FF accept that he is a gobshite.

I lack maturity? Is that the best answer you can give in response to a reply that utterly, without effort, hammers and exposes you at each turn? Please don't get mad if your left with nothing to say. Gracious people just stay quite or acknowledge the errors of their ways.

Lack of understanding? Understanding of the law? Or the feely feely emotions side? Sorry, a discussion of this LEGAL case is being had. You put the emotions outside the door. Don't mix emotions and lies with truth and accuracy. Why can't you just make your argument from a social point of view as oppose to the legal?

I will never take any lecture from you on manners. Your the one who has made false allegations that you have failed to proof, and have not being accepted by mods etc (remember Angel whats his face was consistently getting banned for different accounts) Remember, Your the person who questioned my competency in EU law.

Look, you unable to hold an argument up for ten minutes and defend your stance. It use to be fun embarrassing you for the troll that you are, but I am tired of it. Go away, and stop dragging this discussion down to your standards please.

[walrusgumble]

Just two questions-How did you know those citizen applications were already approved before Shatter and the high court cases(oh you heard from someone?well tell that person he/she is a lier) You said that is why they are paragraphs in the judgment for you to look at the main stuff-So thats what you normally do?and you come here posting rubbish?my friend go back and read the whole judgment properly to enable you gain perfect understanding of the ruling in Dereci.free yourself from mental slavery will ya?

Mates in Tipp, who still work there. As for the High Court cases, (a) You can find them on courts diary, if we were bored, (b) Mates in the INIS Dept Dublin. Tell that person they are liars? You got proof of that sunshine? There are a few embarrassing things that could be leaked on Shatter too btw. I also know some people in the law library, but have not spoken to them in donkeys,

Look boy, read the actually paragraphs and don't be coming on here all smart mule just because you know that a NAG is an Austrian Law. I am not Austrian, its not important to know what a NAG is. I have posted the relevant part of the judgment.

Again, unless your Turkish, the final part of the judgment is irrelevant. Now, I you have proven stupidity time and time again, please, I request, shut up and go away.

[Morrisj]

ok Mr wals lets wait for the upcoming Ecj case(s),am sure there would be more cases aiming properly at Dereci.Until then I reserve comments.One more question,tho thanks for letting me know Turkey is an aspirant member state as you said.Just answer this question for me-Mr Dereci won his case by freedom of establishment(marriage,automatically made him guardian to the minor children)why didnt the other couple succeed like Mr dereci?or was dereci's marriage special from the other couple's marriage?

[walrusgumble]

ok Mr wals lets wait for the upcoming Ecj case(s),am sure there would be more cases aiming properly at Dereci.Until then I reserve comments.One more question,tho thanks for letting me know Turkey is an aspirant member state as you said.Just answer this question for me-Mr Dereci won his case by freedom of establishment(marriage,automatically made him guardian to the minor children)why didnt the other couple succeed like Mr dereci?or was dereci's marriage special from the other couple's marriage?

Ok, let us wait for more ECJ cases (now called CJEU, I know, its totally, like, a bad habit, like). Reserve Judgment for wait though?

What angles do you think are available for clarification on Dercei? (Genuine Question) What questions should be sought to be clarified?

Wow, despite pretty much copy and pasting the case, you still are incapable of getting it. Dereci , as oppose to the others, got sorted on the basis of the treaty arrangement's with Turkey and EU and not on EU law as we know it. All argument in his favor have nothing to do with many cases in Ireland.

Being Turkish, and not being able to rely on EU law, the Courts were asked (unlike others as they were not EU or Turks)

The fourth question

76. By its fourth question, the referring court is asking, essentially, whether Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 or Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State from subjecting the initial entry of a Turkish national to stricter national rules than those which previously applied to such entry, even though those previous national rules, which had relaxed the initial entry regime, did not enter into force until after those articles were given effect in the Member State in question, following its accession to the Union.

Read the rest of it yourself, as Turk-Eu law is of no relevance to us, I ain't spelling it out.

I will just say quickly, Due to Turks aspiration into Europe (which is being hotly opposed , particularly ze Germans) they are a few trade and free movement deals with them

[Regulator56]

Walrusgamble, like I said earlier, you do not need to impose your agenda on this forum. Go to other fora that support your cause and where you are likely to find like minds- ye can all party in your prejudicial atmosphere.

Your argument is that you are stating facts and providing a critical analysis of issues, that is a fat lie, all you are doing is providing your twisted thoughts/beliefs on Immigration and immigrants in the guise of having good knowledge of the EU law.

You are currently jizzing in your pants over the Dereci ruling when like I said there is no clear cut interpretation as yet. You are not a lawyer or have any legal training, I know this because I would be horrified if you were a lawyer with your poor grammatical skills and abysmal presentation, lack of paragraphs and consistent typographical errors- for instance in all your posts, you do not understand the difference between effect and affect.

I suspect you are either working in the Immigration or have worked there before, If true, this only reinforces peoples suspicion about the lack of professionalism, incompetency of the Irish Immigration officials. You say you get your information from your friends in Irish Immigration in Tipp and Dublin, I dont know how they are able to divulge such sensitive information to you but I am sure like they say beds of the same feathers flock together. I would not be surprised if you agree with Darren Scully the former mayor of Nass as well or is he your mate too? because you have made several statements about a certain group of people on this forum

You had the audacity to be pontificating on how a couple should procreate- you said they should practice family planning and should not have children- does that mean they should not pollute the precious Irish blood? You Sir are a disgrace for that comment, the decision to have children is not your business neither is it the states! The fact is if the child is an EU citizen, he is entitled to have both parents with him and live a stable life.

You go on and on about what member states are thinking and planning like you are part of the inner circle, you said the Dereci judgement was meant to pacify the French and Germans because of the economy, what utter crap! The court answered the questions put to them and the ramifications and implications are still been measured by legal experts and not some immigrant hating faceless amateur who permutes that its is a great victory for member states. It is open to interpretation and several cases would go to court for clarification and adjudication.

Like I said earlier, as the EU becomes more politically unified, the EU would continue to encroach on national immigration policies (especially those that are devoid of common sense), your last explanation about the loss of economic sovereignty in Ireland and the fact that the Irish budget was presented to the Bundestag before the Irish parliament is laughable in the least,you call it co-operation..are you having a laugh, more like imposition mate.

The fact is right now, this country is funded by the Germans and essentially this country is an annex municipal of Germany. You ridiculously said the Germans provided cheap credit, did they put guns on the head of the Irish to live beyond their means? why didn't the Scandinavians abuse the same cheap credit? or indeed the Germans themselves?

You level of analysis is bewildering and scary to be honest, Ireland treats immigrants with contempt but it is basing her own economic recovery on her own citizens emigrating!! Oh the IRONY

Walrus, you and your friends would live long and you will see the EU law continue to favor common sense and fair treatment of people.

[walrusgumble]

Regulator, you are utterely self serving. You pick on grammer errors and carelessness of posts, but you are unable to challenge the legal validity of anything that has being said.Mobiles are not ideal for typing.If this was an oral presentation,which you would never have an excuse.Now deal with why Dercei has nothing.Go to n read the court reports of Ireland n'Europe.That's the basis of my statements,not my opinion.Your just pissy about how I say things and you are annoyed that the roots of what I say are accepted by the Judiciary.I never held myself out as a practioner,your clutching at straws.I never said that I worked at the INIS,my friends do.The High Ct tends to rule in favour of them.CJEU are becoming more Member State centred - deal with that!As for prejudice,where? On illegalsWith regard to agenda,I am directly responding to everything a poster has said when he questioned me,address that.Point out where I am incorrect.Dercei is pretty clear,you don't think so, so discuss it.As for liar, ha.

[walrusgumble]

Mayor of Naas,dear lord, realising that your clutching at straws, going no where, use old trusty race card, brilliant. If that chap's allegations are true I see what he means.Bully boy tactics won't be tolerated by people in the real world. Don't go thinking that was a victory, it will be all forgotten 2 years time. Things sadly are going to get nasty and you know this.As for United Europe, that is never going to happen. Trust of Brussels is at an all time low.CJEU have backtracked on Citizenship.As for agenda, what was the purpose of the reverse discrimination site? What was his nationality?What does your country do?Legal Non EU immigrants n EU citizens have being treated pretty well over the years.It's the illegals who have problems.What obligations do any State have with them?regulate, that's dearly beloved I suppose?It's not a utopia. Keep the discussion on the topic.By the way I said the COMMISSON is following the member states and not the court,but don't let that stop you

[walrusgumble]

You do realise that German Banks directly invested in property here.Europe is not to blame for Ireland's economic mess,Ireland is.You do realise that the economic problems are all over Europe,not just Ireland.Germany got a bit of a scare today!You do realise that EU can't interefere on non eu law immigration issues & are mindful of that.Senseless immigration policy?, for who?It was senseless not to follow the UK n others in the 1980's on changes on citizenship laws.German's and British take similar policy approaches on third country nationals,albeit harsher but more efficient & transparent.I have no qualms with legal+skilled eu & non eu people who live n work here,we NEEDED THEM. the best of luck to them,i hope they did well financially.living beyond means?wastes,salaries and property was treason,but alot of expenditure was needed to modernise the country as it was so behind,still is,the alternatives was to get loans from the world banks at higher rates.least we aint greece n will get on with it

[walrusgumble]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss dercei. the consenus is that it's not clear cut, it's open to interpretation. well discuss. if not don't comment here, because as usual people prefer to go off topic to suit themselves. It is advisable, for transparency to base any further discussion on links to sources, so no one can be accused of anything or try to high jack a thread by trolling

[Morrisj]

@Wals i am suspecting you to be a very weird person and a complete liar,sometime ago when we had argument on zambrano thread,you said you worked with the Justice ages ago but your conversation with Regulator,you said you never worked there.Yes regulator you are right and that is what i have been trying to let people know,Mr wals twist and confuse people with words and only a fool would take his view,am not sure you are using google.com maybe wals.com.Oh using mobile was the reason for the poor grammar?

[Morrisj]

Unless i misunderstood what you said about the mobile dnt tell me you also started using mobile over night because you were slagged on your grammar,am not perfect myself but check this out-Since the ban on Irishtom,you started appearing online every hour even late at night,that was rare.Now when did you start using mobile,am sure not quite long cos i remember you slagging me(addicted to the site,using your mobile)Its funny Irishtom didnt reg. a new id and continue his crap if truly he was not Mr wals

[Regulator56]

Mayor of Naas,dear lord, realising that your clutching at straws, going no where, use old trusty race card, brilliant. If that chap's allegations are true I see what he means.Bully boy tactics won't be tolerated by people in the real world. Don't go thinking that was a victory, it will be all forgotten 2 years time. Things sadly are going to get nasty and you know this.As for United Europe, that is never going to happen. Trust of Brussels is at an all time low.CJEU have backtracked on Citizenship.As for agenda, what was the purpose of the reverse discrimination site? What was his nationality?What does your country do?Legal Non EU immigrants n EU citizens have being treated pretty well over the years.It's the illegals who have problems.What obligations do any State have with them?regulate, that's dearly beloved I suppose?It's not a utopia. Keep the discussion on the topic.By the way I said the COMMISSON is following the member states and not the court,but don't let that stop you

Walrus, you do not need to reply to a single post with 4 different posts, you could have explicated yourself in the same post with four different paragraphs- you know what that is? As usual your posts are awash with inconsistencies and goes a long way in confirming people's suspicion about your motives.

Firstly, I did not bring up your grammatical skills or the obvious lack of it to demean you. That was to explain the fact that you are not a lawyer and do not have any legal training whatsoever. Your posts come across as if you are stating facts but most are merely your opinion which is fueled by your ideology on immigration. So if you are offended- suck it up!

Secondly, before I briefly comment some of your points I am highly disappointed that you did not address the issue of your statement telling immigrants to practice family planning and not procreate because there is no guarantee under the law that they would stay together as a family unit. Now Mr Walrus, that is self serving and can be construed as been xenophobic and discriminatory.

Now to Dereci, unlike you I do not claim to be an EU legal expert, I come to this forum to get further understanding. My own view is that Dereci has not provided unequivocal or a clear explanation on the rights of the non-EU parent/parents of EU citizens for example if an Italian and Australian have an Irish child- does Zambrano apply to the Australian? There are a host of other possible scenerios that are not explained by Dereci. You came here in a very jubilant mode and declared victory for the member states hours after the judgement was made. Reputable law firms/practitioners have stated on their websites that they are still reflecting on the contents of the judgement before making definitive statements. That is why I said it is not a clear cut case but our in house legal expert- Walrus declared victory for the member states.

You have not answered my question Walrus! I asked you how your freinds at INIS in Tipp and Dublin are able to divulge these confidential information to you, is that not a breach of confidentiality? I made reference to Scully because you seem to have friends in high places and you have made similar comments he made about a particular group of people several times on this forum. Can you confirm or deny you have made similar remarks about a particular group of people on this forum?

You said there is no possibility of political union, how do you know? through your crystal ball? or are your friends at INIS privy to information yet to be shared with the rest of the universe. Like I said in my last post, you lack basic analytical skills, if you cannot see that the current economic turmoil is only leading to more fiscal and political union, then that is problematic. I don't know anything about a reverse discrimination site so please stop deviating and bringing it up!

You said a lot of expenditure was needed to modernize the country? another lack of basic understanding of the economy. Ireland has benefited in terms of EU structural funds (Funds for the less well off EU member states)more than any country per capita in the EU. Most of the revenue generated during the Celtic and tiger era was used in paying bloated salaries to civil servants , setting up Quangos and keeping the boys happy. When the times changed and bubble burst, guess who Irish people go for- the usual suspects- Immigrants

You do not want trolling but you answered a poster by pasting the entire Dereci judgement in a single post- laughable. Are you not capable of paraphrasing or summarising important or relevant elements of it and maybe perhaps put the wordings that support your argument? All you do is obfuscate the argument by consistently making false professorial permutations.

[walrusgumble]

morris, if you are going to someone a liar, get your facts right. dept of justice is split into various sections.some are based outside dublin,some have separate buildings and websites. the inis is just one of many different sections.i never said that i did not spend time at justice, i was in prison reform for a short time.i only ever said that i was not assigned to inis and that i no longer have anything to do with civil service-its boring n hell, and not as well paid as you think.old threads will confirm this.as for grammer thats down to mobile and carelessness and failure to re-read.what is your excuse?for once, would you care to get facts right n cease trolling. You have views on Dercei and future development? Discuss

[walrusgumble]

Unless i misunderstood what you said about the mobile dnt tell me you also started using mobile over night because you were slagged on your grammar,am not perfect myself but check this out-Since the ban on Irishtom,you started appearing online every hour even late at night,that was rare.Now when did you start using mobile,am sure not quite long cos i remember you slagging me(addicted to the site,using your mobile)Its funny Irishtom didnt reg. a new id and continue his crap if truly he was not Mr wals

the last posts were by mobile. i have done this a number of times long before irish tom started that nonsense.site admin will have ALL IP addresses on system.i understand that you are on mobile too sometimes. so your free to talk to them and be told that you are barking up the wrong tree. go and do it. i will be more than happy to discuss this with them. as for irish tom, lord, he is kicking it up on politics.ie. i can put up with grammer slagging i deserve that, but the other tosh ...

[walrusgumble]

error, copy and paste to the amended & cleaned up post. Mods, delete this. Where is the delete button btw?

[walrusgumble]

error

[walrusgumble]

Walrus, you do not need to reply to a single post with 4 different posts, you could have explicated yourself in the same post with four different paragraphs- you know what that is? As usual your posts are awash with inconsistencies and goes a long way in confirming people's suspicion about your motives.

As Morris. or anyone one else shall confirm, it is difficult to get everything down in one post and properly quote that poster by mobile. So far what you have said there and grammar issues is fair game.

You mention that the comments are awash of inconsistencies. Morris also said that, you and he both the same? (see its an easy allegation when you . Your not the same, its is very clear not your not Morris). You and Morris have never actually pointed out what comments are inconsistent, nor have you been able to state what information that I have got wrong.

You do realise that when someone says something, they need to explain what they mean by that and so evidence. If they can't its trolling. Now, you are required to point out these so called inconsistencies. I believe, as I will show below, these "inconistencies" are being invented in your head.

Confirming Motives? Ah, someone disagrees with you they are wacist. Someone who has made clear differeniations between different class of immigrants, ie illegals v legals, they are seen to hate them all. Great analysis, regulator.

You do not want trolling but you answered a poster by pasting the entire Dereci judgement in a single post- laughable. Are you not capable of paraphrasing or summarising important or relevant elements of it and maybe perhaps put the wordings that support your argument? All you do is obfuscate the argument by consistently making false professorial permutations.

as for putting up the full decision, that's fair enough if i was talking to you or a few other contributors who are capable of holding an argument.But i was not talking to you, I was talking to Morris, who has a penchant for distorting what is said. So, to be on the safe side and avoid constant repeating of the same comments by Morris, it is put up. If I did not put up the wording, I would have people like you and Morris complaining that I am somehow distorting facts with opinion and my world view, as you erroenously and without any support for such view, continue to do.

As for paraphrasing, I don't agree with paraphrasing because many people on this site have a penchant for distorting and taking one liners out of context, to suit themselves.

Firstly, I did not bring up your grammatical skills or the obvious lack of it to demean you. That was to explain the fact that you are not a lawyer and do not have any legal training whatsoever. Your posts come across as if you are stating facts but most are merely your opinion which is fueled by your ideology on immigration. So if you are offended- suck it up!

Any slagging of the use grammar, that is fair game.Funny though, you lot understand very well or invent an understanding to suit your line of argument, whenever it suits you.

I merely was explaining myself it was happening, there is no offence. I never, held out that I was a practitioner. You have never been able to rebut any legal comment made by me, but I never said that I was an expert. I have read widely, but so have many others here (yet still get it laughably wrong). You point out the posts that you are referring to, and I will be happy to provide the actual courts cases and sources that supports what I have said.!!!!

Now you see the importance of providing links etc to support yourself. Now you see why I did copy and paste the important parts of Dercei, to shut people like you up when they realise that someone is correct, but want to try another pointless angle of attack. I was correct, deal with it.

Secondly, before I briefly comment some of your points I am highly disappointed that you did not address the issue of your statement telling immigrants to practice family planning and not procreate because there is no guarantee under the law that they would stay together as a family unit. Now Mr Walrus, that is self serving and can be construed as been xenophobic and discriminatory.

I don't advocate family planning or telling people what to do in that line. I am merely, and glibbly responding to the whinging complaining about this nonsense of "second class citizenship". If they felt that they are in such a position, why did they risk having a baby here then. It's simply, put up and shut up. THe laws on family reunification of non EU's have been in place long before the baby boom, see Somjee and Oka Sun (wrong spellings) in the 1980's. They knew the risks before coming. By the way I was referring to cases where fathers allowed their heavily pregnant wifes take the risk of travelling to Ireland, a foreign country, with no back up, and no financial support. Then when the close is clear come over. They showed little regard for their family. Family Units, are being high jacked. So don't get all high and mighty here, few in this State buy that guff.

Now to Dereci, unlike you I do not claim to be an EU legal expert, I come to this forum to get further understanding. My own view is that Dereci has not provided unequivocal or a clear explanation on the rights of the non-EU parent/parents of EU citizens for example if an Italian and Australian have an Irish child- does Zambrano apply to the Australian? There are a host of other possible scenerios that are not explained by Dereci. You came here in a very jubilant mode and declared victory for the member states hours after the judgement was made. Reputable law firms/practitioners have stated on their websites that they are still reflecting on the contents of the judgement before making definitive statements. That is why I said it is not a clear cut case but our in house legal expert- Walrus declared victory for the member states.

The point of this thread, as my first post shall show, was to leave the judgment up, for all to read, and to discuss the merits of the case. It was not to get into discussions like this, these discussions are trolling. Morris highjacked a perfectly good thread previously, and is trying to do so now.

Now, once this thread is brought under control, please outline the basis of your understanding of a very good example of cases where Dercei does not apply. Your example by the way, will unlikely have problems with Zambrano, but for reasons I will explain latter, the case probably would not, unless in serious cases, fall on the basis of the child.

You have not answered my question Walrus! I asked you how your freinds at INIS in Tipp and Dublin are able to divulge these confidential information to you, is that not a breach of confidentiality? I made reference to Scully because you seem to have friends in high places and you have made similar comments he made about a particular group of people several times on this forum. Can you confirm or deny you have made similar remarks about a particular group of people on this forum?

Word gets around, but non of the information relates to people's personal facts, so there is no confidentiality breaches. As for personal facts, you will find all of them open for the public's viewing in the Court Case Reports on bailii.org and courts.ie., whether it is judicial review of asylum cases, cases involving parents of Irish children under domestic law (courts always refer to how they got into the country). As for administrative stuff, the department is utterly hopeless so you would be forgiven to expect nothing but bad things from them. Maybe Shatter will clean this up.

As for statements, point out the statements that you allege I make. If you think I have sympathy for people who engage in sham marriages or get pregnant to side step immigration laws, I have on numerous occassions made my view clear. I have no problems with immigrants who come here legally. I could not give a damn about their colour or where they are from. So long as they behave themselves. I do, and I have made it clear numerous of times, do not tolerate people who came illegally or under false pretenses, especially as it has cost the state millions. Its got nothing to do with race and nothing to do with the Irish Disaspora (which I made my views on illegal Irish very clear). When people realize the race card don't wash and a not afraid to discuss immigration, then and only then will Ireland have a fairer and transparent immigration policy that suits the needs and ability of the State.

Now before going on the attack, I ask, as I always do, ask yourself what your country does ?

As for Scully, I don't know what he actually said and the context of why he said it, so you will need to divulge. I am assuming that the people he referred to already had legal status, so, as a Councillor, he has no choice but to deal with them. I don't know what he was suppose to be doing for them, helping in immigration issues or housing?

You said there is no possibility of political union, how do you know? through your crystal ball? or are your friends at INIS privy to information yet to be shared with the rest of the universe. Like I said in my last post, you lack basic analytical skills, if you cannot see that the current economic turmoil is only leading to more fiscal and political union, then that is problematic. I don't know anything about a reverse discrimination site so please stop deviating and bringing it up!

There will be further economic union, because, in my opinion, in order for the Euro to survive, the ECB must have central power. This is what should have happened ages ago and not 17 or show separate Central Banks who determine everything. Ireland should never have joined the Euro currency.

As for political union, it will not happen because the French won't tolerate further loss of soverignity, the Constitution attempt in 2003, makes that clear. UK won't buy into it. Ireland will want some soverignity.

The Lisbon Treaty brought in new provisions on sending legislation to National Parliaments for their view. They themselves recognize that the purpose of these provisions was to dampening down fears of Federalism. There is a serious democratic deficit in Europe eg Commission not elected by the people (just one example) .Small states fear being completely taken over. There are certain areas that Member States will not allow to be taken over by Europe or even allow them to have any say in them (eg in Ireland, its taxation and abortion, as just an example)

Trust in EU is very low at this time.

When you say political union, what do you mean?

None of that will concern free movement expansions,

You said a lot of expenditure was needed to modernize the country? another lack of basic understanding of the economy. Ireland has benefited in terms of EU structural funds (Funds for the less well off EU member states)more than any country per capita in the EU. Most of the revenue generated during the Celtic and tiger era was used in paying bloated salaries to civil servants , setting up Quangos and keeping the boys happy. When the times changed and bubble burst, guess who Irish people go for- the usual suspects- Immigrants

Point out where I ever denied that EU were responsible for helping us in getting funds.? Why did you even bring that up? WHere did you get the ridiculous notion that it was even relevant.

That paragraph is a clear example of where you are making arguments up to comments that were never made. EU is responsible for 80% of the funding that has been used to modernize Ireland. Inconsistencies, its all in your head.

This has little to do with basic economics, because no one is arguing against what you think. I have acknolwedged that Ireland is at fault for its problems, but EU states like Germany did invest in Ireland for profit (no one is complaining) that does not suggest we are blaming Germany. I called the salary etc nonsense as treason.

As for expenses to modernise, and then this idiotic nonsense of not understanding basic economic - you either are a spuffer or genuinely misunderstood what I said in the first place.

Ireland needed to invest heavily and quickly into infrastructure and social projects that had been neglected since the foundation of the State and even since the 1950's. Schools, telecommunication etc. This was needed to suggest otherwise show that you are only a blow in. (no crime)

. The problem, our government overspent without proper taxing in order to stay in power. No one denies that EU helped us to fund these projects. The road signs prove they did.

God help the Germans, they are being left in a dangerous position of footing alot of bills. Of course they are going to call the shots if they are becoming a pay master. Lord knows why you seem to be getting a smug over this, the immigrants via taxation etc will get it harder (as they have little or no support groups in a foreign land)


Now stick you the topic or go away

[Rip v Winkle]

The reality of Irish and EU law has played out to be absurd, unjust and unequal.

I fail to understand the logic of the Irish Dept of Justice and Equality that
leaves Irish Citizens second class.

I fail to understand the logic of the EU court, aiming at an internal market,
and completing it, while at the same time continuing to attach importance to the
crossing of internal national frontiers, is in itself contradictory.

The Dereci judgement in this context is also absurd. Two non-EU parents of an EU
child have the right to remain as a family unit, but a mixed EU and non-EU parents
of an EU child have no similar right, to remain as a family unit.
For them to at least see each other, must they split up, thus leaving the non-EU
parent the sole carer of the child.

The law has become an mule. and the Irish Dept of Justice and Equality are a fine example.
On the one hand attacking genuine family units with no negative immigration history,
and on the other hand completely ignoring and failing to prosecute and imprison fraudsters.

I wouldn't be too despondent at the result here. Europe cannot practically be the first port of call for issues like this. In theory at least, we all share the same value system and each Member Nation's court should be able to come up with a fair judgement. It's quite possible that the Austrian Administrative Court forwarded the questions hoping for confirmation that the proposed deportations ( I think it's called "prohibition to remain" in Austria) would be illegal under EU law, thus avoiding the need to offend the Ministry. I don't know the exact circumstances of each case here, but from the brief outline it looks like the Ministry is being very aggressive. I sincerely hope that the court finds a way to stop them. I will try to follow the outcome, but I have a feeling that if deportation goes ahead we'll get to hear about it anyway.
Identifying minorities and non nationals as causes of social malaise is not new in Europe. I think that there are many people who would be horrified at the idea that fascists are making a major comeback. I know that the extreme rightwing are enjoying a surge of support right now, but that is to be expected. Up to now, support seems to have been limited to a maximum of 15% of the voting population of any state. I am a little surprised, though, that Anders Breivik didn't cause a few more of them to think again.

[Rip v Winkle]

A. I would take a step back on the Article 40.1 argument. Though, for benefit of doubt , I should ask you to clarify. Article 40.1 is one of the most weakest Constitutional provisions in Irish Law. There is no such thing as Equality for all. You treat like for like , you don't threat unlike the same. The position with a Static Irish Citizen married to a non eu national is entirely different from that of other marriages involving Irish Citizens.

You would likely, as previous Irish immigration cases have done in the past, failed on this argument.



B. "The Immigration act merely identifies treaty rights as one of the factors that must be taken into account when granting whatever stamp is applicable"

Explain what this means please.

A. I agree that Article 40.1 does not guarantee completely equal treatment However when differentiating and creating categories of like to compare with like, logic and justice demands that you have some clear guidelines or test to determine what are your criteria. I don't know a great deal about cases or decisions so I don't know whether any Irish Court has ever set out a complete guideline that is followed. I did find the following (from Singapore Court of Appeals - Taw Cheng Kong - I paraphrased it slightly but it still makes sense):
1. Is the law or its administration discriminatory in that it provides for differential treatment among individuals?
2. If so, is the differentiation founded on intelligible criteria? If no, then the differentiation is unconstitutional.
3. If the criteria are clear, is the discrimination itself reasonable i.e. is a clear objective of the law is being pursued in a reasonable manner? If no, then the differentiation is unconstitutional.
Has any one ever looked at 3 above relating to " reverse discrimination" under discussion

B. I am referring to Section 4 subsection 6 of the Immigration Act 2004. I don't see that the Act itself legalises reverse discrimination, but judging from comments on this forum and from what I hear, the INIS or the (Minister- I can't really make up my mind about who is steering this ship) interprets it as though it did.

Hope the above clarifies my question. I'd like to hear what you think.

[walrusgumble]

A. I would take a step back on the Article 40.1 argument. Though, for benefit of doubt , I should ask you to clarify. Article 40.1 is one of the most weakest Constitutional provisions in Irish Law. There is no such thing as Equality for all. You treat like for like , you don't threat unlike the same. The position with a Static Irish Citizen married to a non eu national is entirely different from that of other marriages involving Irish Citizens.

You would likely, as previous Irish immigration cases have done in the past, failed on this argument.



B. "The Immigration act merely identifies treaty rights as one of the factors that must be taken into account when granting whatever stamp is applicable"

Explain what this means please.

A. I agree that Article 40.1 does not guarantee completely equal treatment However when differentiating and creating categories of like to compare with like, logic and justice demands that you have some clear guidelines or test to determine what are your criteria. I don't know a great deal about cases or decisions so I don't know whether any Irish Court has ever set out a complete guideline that is followed. I did find the following (from Singapore Court of Appeals - Taw Cheng Kong - I paraphrased it slightly but it still makes sense):
1. Is the law or its administration discriminatory in that it provides for differential treatment among individuals?
2. If so, is the differentiation founded on intelligible criteria? If no, then the differentiation is unconstitutional.
3. If the criteria are clear, is the discrimination itself reasonable i.e. is a clear objective of the law is being pursued in a reasonable manner? If no, then the differentiation is unconstitutional.
Has any one ever looked at 3 above relating to " reverse discrimination" under discussion

B. I am referring to Section 4 subsection 6 of the Immigration Act 2004. I don't see that the Act itself legalises reverse discrimination, but judging from comments on this forum and from what I hear, the INIS or the (Minister- I can't really make up my mind about who is steering this ship) interprets it as though it did.

Hope the above clarifies my question. I'd like to hear what you think.

Irish cases on Article 40, most are ancient, because, it has being interpreted very negatively, so it tends to be used as a last resort. Go to the Illac Shopping Centre Library (or any decent library) Oran Doyle has a very good book on Consitutional Equality. Alot of it is opinion and argument, but it states the law.

As for immigration, few cases fall on Article 40. Even with Article 41, the Courts will say, its not absolute.


The test in Equality and your example, under Article 40 is quite similar actually. Brennan v AG 1980'sish (I can't remember the name) There was a case in 2003ish involving One of the island off the Blasket Islands (I will get back to that later - have a flick through www.supremecourt.ie)

The problem with Irish Immigration Law is the level of Ministerial Discretion, without the said policies and principles being publicly made known. The Courts are reluctant to interfere with this, ie excessive. Judicial Review itself is a limited procedure, (hence the need for proper appeals for refusuals of leave to remain and citizenship decisions, like in England) Shatter complained about the excessive discretion back in opposition. I wonder will he do something.

To be quite frank, (but relevant here, in the example Regulator provided ie Irish Child, German and Australian parent - which cynically, I believe department would be ok with, as Ireland has a history with the Aussies) there is no point predicting how Shatter will really treat applications involving illegal or legal non eu's married to Irish Citizens or parents of Citizen Children under Domestic law (take Zambrano away for one second). He may adopt a different approach than previous, or his civil servants may over power him, who knows.

Reverse Discrimination, that argument was made in Kumar v Minister for Justice. 2007. It failed. Many will remember this case. The law relates to Metock. It was heard by Hanna J, whom I understand, would not be the greatest, but its the nearest. I trust you will find it your self on courts.ie and bailii.org

Basically, he said, and to be fair kind of unconvincingly; that EU applied in cases for eg German, so it was TOTALLY different to a static Irish person in Ireland, so you can't compared. I really doubt a Court might buy this when assessing Irish Law because the State would be encouraged by the McCarthy case and how EU don't accept the principle (even Zambrano , the Court refused to consider or comment on reverse discrimination, despite Sharpton providing a huge open door)


Section 4(6) of the 2004 Act is definitely overruled where EU law applies. (I trust I don't need to point out where you will find this in the Constitution. Section 2 2 (a) confirms this.

As for others outside that, eg spouse of EU citizen who comes from certain vias non eu places? Depends, I guess, where they are travelling. After all, if you were Irish and the misses was Nigerian, ye travel to France, spend a few days-weeks there. You are exercising EU rights. Surely they can't get too pissy when returning to Ireland (still exercising EU rights) if the incorrect visas are in place? She CAN'T be refused entry. Might be fined (as per the Directive 2004/38 EC) If they get legal, it may be a pain in the whole, but visa requirement is a lesser evil.

The first issue is getting status (in the context of r.d.)

[Morrisj]

@wals i said am done arguing with you,You can bang your head against Eu-law or wait to become minister of Justice,then you can include your desire into the Irish law, when Zambrano ruling came out,even tho it was both non eu parents,you werent happy,you had to compare the law romanians.You said why would Eu law favour non nationals than romanians.Dereci came out,you were on jublilant mode on behalf of memberstates and same time saying Germany would be more worried than Ireland.is that not contradiction?

[IQU]

boring topic????????????????????????????????