lobbying before it is too late!!!!

[mr.malikos]

Hello everybody,
Maybe I'm the only one, but I see there are some clouds coming over us through the DoJ There will be a hearing in Luxembourg soon......
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/f ... resmax=100
The DoJ is trying to establish a prototype case in Luxembourg allowing them to turn EU.1 applications down from non EU spouses of EU nationals who do not have prior residence in another EU member state.(OK they do it anyhow, but this was so far not covered though the EU.1 law). Married people living for years out side the EU and now coming back with their partners might get separated because of this. How could such couples have prior EU residence if all the EU member states would refuse them on the same grounds as Ireland permanent residency? The same stupid question is what was first there the egg or the chicken.
The thing which makes me angry and raises my concern, is that as example the Irish High Court and DoJ apparently just submitted four cases of asylum seekers whose application was turned down or where already unlawfully in the state to Luxembourg.
I think this point may have a major impact on the judgement.
My basic understanding is that the European Court will require lawful residence as requested in the Akriche case......so no lawful residence.... no EU.1......getting kicked out!
I assume strongly that the four selected cases will not fulfil this and will be turned down.
However as in the Jia-case the court said there is no requirement of prior residence in another EU member state. This was for a case where somebody who was lawfully resident (tourist VISA) within the host state and applied for EU.1. This means it will depend on immigration story and personal circumstances.
....So taken together they try to sheet on us......once they have their prototype case. DoJ can turn people applications down and even more kick them out!!!!!!!!!Is there any possibility to influence this hearing or to get in touch with the EU-Commission to make the Judges aware that there are also many cases of couples who entered the Irish state lawfully and have been working hard, who are forced now to think about quitting their jobs. The revelant EU legislation was put in place to allow such people to live everywhere in the EU in order to be able to go for job opportunities EU wide. Now the contray could happen....why should we allow this!
Ireland is trying to sheet on us....don’t let them take the butter from your bread!!!!!!! Get up people and lobby in your own best interest in Luxembourg!!!!!!!

[mr.malikos]

......Just another Idea......

Does anybody know the banisters (names) for the upcoming hearing in Luxembourg in relation to EU.1 issue? [/b]

Since the cases presented are all asylum cases, maybe there is the option to reach a broader approach in this hearing (through interacting with these layers) and pushing them to talk about other cases.

Through this (likely) a favourable judgement may be reached.

It would be a pity, if prior residency in on other EU member state would become a “mustâ€

[eu.1-victim]

Yes Mr. Malicos,

Apparently, there are some things ongoing with Luxembourg court.
However, the judges already decided for a EU.1 case of a Chinese national:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:v0 ... cd=6&gl=ie

So I think in principle what you describe is correct....directive 38/EC/2004 does not require prior residency in another EU member state, as long as you are legally resident in the state at the time when you apply for EU.1.

I wonder if anybody has used this case while appealing a DoJ refusal letter? Please cloud anybody tell me what DoJ have answers, basing their appeals of refusal letters on Jia case as a reference....

Please help me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mr.malikos]

We should all very carefully watch what is happening these days in Luxembourg....I sincerely hope the Judges stick to their Jia judgment; the hearing is today. So fingers crossed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[walrusgumble]

it was judge finlay geoghegan of the high court and not the doj or lawyers of the applicants who referred this case to europe. a number of questions were made to the European Court in relation to the validility of the Regulation 3.2 - so it was an independant reference

[walrusgumble]

[quote="mr.malikos"]......Just another Idea......

Does anybody know the banisters (names) for the upcoming hearing in Luxembourg in relation to EU.1 issue? [/b]

Since the cases presented are all asylum cases, maybe there is the option to reach a broader approach in this hearing (through interacting with these layers) and pushing them to talk about other cases.

Through this (likely) a favourable judgement may be reached.

It would be a pity, if prior residency in on other EU member state would become a “mustâ€

[walrusgumble]

Yes Mr. Malicos,

Apparently, there are some things ongoing with Luxembourg court.
However, the judges already decided for a EU.1 case of a Chinese national:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:v0 ... cd=6&gl=ie

So I think in principle what you describe is correct....directive 38/EC/2004 does not require prior residency in another EU member state, as long as you are legally resident in the state at the time when you apply for EU.1.

I wonder if anybody has used this case while appealing a DoJ refusal letter? Please cloud anybody tell me what DoJ have answers, basing their appeals of refusal letters on Jia case as a reference....

Please help me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they tended to ignore them or if one had a high court case they proposed settlements and granted some residency

[mr.malikos]

Dear walrusgumble,
It is actually very basic....but apparently you need some private lessons (well not really, I just think that your approach is a little bit too transparent IN FAVOUR OF THE DOJ) or are you just trying to discourage people?
In the controversial context of current Irish 2004/38/EC practice, I would like to allow you (DoJ) insight in our view of the situation:
I assume that the relevant Irish minister i.e. DoJ implemented its interpretation (of directive 2004/38/EC with regard to the following text (Case C-109/01):
“In order to be able to benefit from the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, a national of a non-Member State married to a citizen of the Union must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he or she moves to another Member State to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migratedâ€

[walrusgumble]

[quote="mr.malikos"]Dear walrusgumble,
It is actually very basic....but apparently you need some private lessons (well not really, I just think that your approach is a little bit too transparent IN FAVOUR OF THE DOJ) or are you just trying to discourage people?
In the controversial context of current Irish 2004/38/EC practice, I would like to allow you (DoJ) insight in our view of the situation:
I assume that the relevant Irish minister i.e. DoJ implemented its interpretation (of directive 2004/38/EC with regard to the following text (Case C-109/01):
“In order to be able to benefit from the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, a national of a non-Member State married to a citizen of the Union must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he or she moves to another Member State to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migratedâ€

[mr.malikos]

Dear walrusgrumble,

The problem is the DoJ took the wrong approach to tackle this immigration-law-bypassing issue. Just rewrite your Irish interpretation of directive 2004/38/EC and state that at the time of application in the state the non-EU national must be lawfully present within Ireland. That would be fully OK.
That is the only correct practice taken Jia and Akriche in consideration.

However, NO...NO...NO...DoJ wants as stated in the independent:
“This will be contested by the Government, which argues that this directive deals only with movement within the Union and not entry to it.

Last year, the Government issued thousands of non-EU spouses with “notices of intent to deportâ€

[mr.malikos]

I wrote to the ECJ, ( for lobbying purposes and to ask for details etc), but I do not think they are going to give me any info

Does anybody has an idea when the judgment will be published. I do not hope that this will take a couple of years....or any other timeline they usually follow.

Best

[astartes]

i can assure you i am not the person

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your thinly veiled attempts to cover up for the corrupt, incompetent and abusive behavior of the Irish government, which continuously violates EU law by harassing EU citizens and their families, is characteristic of the shameless dishonesty displayed by the politicians of that nation.

Stop insulting the citizens of other countries, whose foreign ministries are sick and tired of dealing with the endless problems created by the corrupt and incompetent Irish political class.

The Irish economy is heavily dependent on enormous handouts from the EU, which it continues to extract by false pretenses. It is also heavily dependent on access to the EU market, and on foreign expertise, given its gross lack of homegrown competence.

I strongly encourage every EU citizen who has been abused by the Irish government to pursue redress through all means provided by the European Union, while bypassing the corrupt justice system of the ROI.

what country are you from? if you are polish or some of the new boys i would not get so cocky, ye will be whinging about europe in time.

The obvious chauvinism displayed in your remark above, which is so characteristic of the mindless arrogance of Irish politicians, proves without any doubt that your posts on this board pursue the agenda of intimidating and discouraging EU citizens from seeking redress against the serious violations of their EU rights being perpetrated by the ROI government.

Ireland is now paying back the money it owes europe

The above is incorrect. Ireland continues and will continue to be a net recipient of EU funds until 2013. This is one of the best known scandals regarding the EU budget.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews ... 2675.shtml

[astartes]

So you are putting all kind of people together, legal and non-legal immigrants.

Dear Mr Malikos,

It is pointless to continue trying to reason with the corrupt, incompetent and abusive representatives of the Irish government. It is extraordinarily clear that they are hell-bent on exploiting and abusing other EU citizens, and on covering up their professional incapacity. It is also clear that the Irish courts, which are famously corrupt, support them in this behavior.

Just take the issue up directly with the EU, with your country's Embassy in Ireland, your own country's EU commissioner and your country's Foreign Ministry. Also contact your country's press. There is nothing left to discuss with the Irish DoJ.

[knapps]

astartos, you have no idea what you are talking about, let me tell you something. I am not Irish but have lived here long time. You are supporting a department whos former minester was rejected heavily by your own people. This DOJ makes a rule and then deny it for sb. Your EU directive implementation is wrong , utterly wrong. If you are not aware of the greif and pain people are suffering here for such nonsence demands then you have no rights to stand upto them.

[mr.malikos]

http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiq ... 0057en.pdf

The news about Metock case released today

[sakura]

They mention something interesting here (bold in original):

The Court considers that its judgment in the Akrich case, in which it ruled that, in order to benefit from the rights of entry into and residence in a Member State, the non-Community spouse of a Union citizen must be lawfully resident in a Member State when he moves to another Member State in the company of a Union citizen, must be reconsidered. The benefit of such rights cannot depend on prior lawful residence of the spouse in another Member State.

But what exactly do they want to do? I mean, how can this be 'reconsidered'?

[mr.malikos]

That means the restrictive approach taken in the Akrich case is obsolete and in the judges eyes the judgement (Akrich) was wrong.
That is just another way to say so....
That means full VICOTRY and stamp 4EU FAM for everybody!!!!!!

There is just a backdoor mentioned at the very end of the text (last page) that penalities may be imposed by the memeber state if the non-EU spouse did not comply previously with national immigration rules. This is so far not further outlined.

However this is still A VERY GOOD DAY for my family and many others.
I wonder what walrusgrumble would say to this judgement......

[mr.malikos]

So my dear friend walrusgrumble form the DOJ,
As you can see the DOJ was wrong, the minister was wrong, the Irish government was wrong and finally yet importantly, you have been wrong.
It is confirmed now that power to rule its own immigration (EU member states) is limited by EU laws. There is no more space for questionable minister’s directives/"ideas of prior residency etc", which may change overnight or not. Ireland has to comply with this judgment and I guess hundreds maybe thousands of people are affected by this.
As I already mentioned as Ireland signed to the EU it gave up some state/national power. EU.1 is a good case therefore.
I just expect the DOJ nothing less than to reconsider its whole approach to administrate and rule immigration. Even as a person with no juristically expertise, it was for me clear while digging out previous judgements from the EC related to the EU.1 matter, that legal immigrates can profit from directive 34/EC/2004 just on the basis of their marriage to their EU-spouse. So why at all was this stupid directives/"ideas of prior residency etc" implemented at all, when it was already from the beginning very clear that the DOJ would face major difficulties.
This was bad management,
bad risk assessment
and very bad legal advice!
As the minister and his office introduced this bad legislation, I wonder about the processes to introduce legislation.
In other words spoken the ministers car may god hit by a Pakistani Taxi-driver and the next day all Pakistani Taxi-drivers are expelled from Ireland. Would this be the way to rule immigration?

Is this the way legislation works in Ireland?

Are you sure you are a civilised country? An educated country? A christian country? Are you sure Ireland is a country at all?

Who is going to take responsability for this desaster? "ireland deserves better" would be a good solgan to addess to the minister and DOJ.


Best
Mr.malikos

[mr.malikos]

Did anybody call so far the helpline or tried to obtain based on the new judgement stamp 4EU Fam?
As the DOJ (as they did in the past) tends to sheet on people...this time we should try to pressurize them give stamp 4 EU Fam. Prior they will invent other barriers etc. Therefore, I will go tonight to them and ask for stamp 4 EU Fam.
It would be very beneficial for all of us if as many people as possible do the same and contact them, by writing or calling them.
In order to not to let them any time to come up with some other stupid stuff or to find excuses to delay now the issuance of stamp 4 EU Fam, which is also one of their favourite strategies to drive people mad, I ask all EU.1 victims to insist now on a very high frequency on their rights that things can move on in our favour in a very timely manner.
So push push, push..... push them now and drive them as mad as they did with us......Best

[Ben]

Did anybody call so far the helpline or tried to obtain based on the new judgement stamp 4EU Fam?
As the DOJ (as they did in the past) tends to sheet on people...this time we should try to pressurize them give stamp 4 EU Fam. Prior they will invent other barriers etc. Therefore, I will go tonight to them and ask for stamp 4 EU Fam.
It would be very beneficial for all of us if as many people as possible do the same and contact them, by writing or calling them.
In order to not to let them any time to come up with some other stupid stuff or to find excuses to delay now the issuance of stamp 4 EU Fam, which is also one of their favourite strategies to drive people mad, I ask all EU.1 victims to insist now on a very high frequency on their rights that things can move on in our favour in a very timely manner.
So push push, push..... push them now and drive them as mad as they did with us......Best

Agreed, but make any and all contact with the DoJ in writing. Verbal communication, be it on the phone or face to face, can easily be forgotten or denied.

[walrusgumble]

That means the restrictive approach taken in the Akrich case is obsolete and in the judges eyes the judgement (Akrich) was wrong.
That is just another way to say so....
That means full VICOTRY and stamp 4EU FAM for everybody!!!!!!

There is just a backdoor mentioned at the very end of the text (last page) that penalities may be imposed by the memeber state if the non-EU spouse did not comply previously with national immigration rules. This is so far not further outlined.

However this is still A VERY GOOD DAY for my family and many others.
I wonder what walrusgrumble would say to this judgement......

as far as genuine marriages are concerned, hearthy congratuglations. for others, well , family courts will be busy in 3-4 years time! ya should not be too worried about what i think, more concerned what the council of europe and people such as France's Sarozy thinks, it is very simile to change eu legisaltion.

any way sure, there is always the marriage restrictions in the new immigration bill to be worried about (not by ye obviously). One thing is for sure, this decision will strengthen the euro sceptics - Lisbon negotiations will be interesting.

Well done thou, nice to see Michael McDowell former minister will have more egg on his face.

[kevo]

I don't understand what you are saying about my country:

Are you sure you are a civilised country? An educated country? A christian country? Are you sure Ireland is a country at all?

I don't think that's in order and I would ask you to retract these hateful rhetorical questions.

Incorrect interpretations (most often deliberately incorrect) of EU law happen all the time. I do think it's a pity that Ireland has been over-ruled by the EU, making a Yes vote on Lisbon II more unlikely; however this decision should be welcomed in general.

Another downside to the decision is that it's likely that Mr. Malikos will be staying in Ireland now.

So my dear friend walrusgrumble form the DOJ,
As you can see the DOJ was wrong, the minister was wrong, the Irish government was wrong and finally yet importantly, you have been wrong.
It is confirmed now that power to rule its own immigration (EU member states) is limited by EU laws. There is no more space for questionable minister’s directives/"ideas of prior residency etc", which may change overnight or not. Ireland has to comply with this judgment and I guess hundreds maybe thousands of people are affected by this.
As I already mentioned as Ireland signed to the EU it gave up some state/national power. EU.1 is a good case therefore.
I just expect the DOJ nothing less than to reconsider its whole approach to administrate and rule immigration. Even as a person with no juristically expertise, it was for me clear while digging out previous judgements from the EC related to the EU.1 matter, that legal immigrates can profit from directive 34/EC/2004 just on the basis of their marriage to their EU-spouse. So why at all was this stupid directives/"ideas of prior residency etc" implemented at all, when it was already from the beginning very clear that the DOJ would face major difficulties.
This was bad management,
bad risk assessment
and very bad legal advice!
As the minister and his office introduced this bad legislation, I wonder about the processes to introduce legislation.
In other words spoken the ministers car may god hit by a Pakistani Taxi-driver and the next day all Pakistani Taxi-drivers are expelled from Ireland. Would this be the way to rule immigration?

Is this the way legislation works in Ireland?

Are you sure you are a civilised country? An educated country? A christian country? Are you sure Ireland is a country at all?

Who is going to take responsability for this desaster? "ireland deserves better" would be a good solgan to addess to the minister and DOJ.


Best
Mr.malikos

[sovtek]

as far as genuine marriages are concerned, hearthy congratuglations. for others, well , family courts will be busy in 3-4 years time! ya should not be too worried about what i think, more concerned what the council of europe and people such as France's Sarozy thinks, it is very simile to change eu legisaltion.

It's a pretty sad comment on Irish society if the majority of Irish people think like you do.
The further away from Lisbon Treaty and more stress for Sarky is all the better.

[sovtek]

I do think it's a pity that Ireland has been over-ruled by the EU, making a Yes vote on Lisbon II more unlikely; however this decision should be welcomed in general.

Another downside to the decision is that it's likely that Mr. Malikos will be staying in Ireland now.

Do you think it's a pity when the government of an EU state acts illegally and corrupt and gets called out for it?
This is probably one of few times that the EU checks the excesses of the Irish government and Irish people should be happy that there is a system in place to protect you from such intransigence.
Now if they would just get onto the intentional slowdown of justice in processing visa's, VRT, Corporate tax, bad housing standards, bad food standards, anti competative corruption and cartels then living standards in this place would vastly improve and might resemble something of what most continentals enjoy.

[Ben]

I do think it's a pity that Ireland has been over-ruled by the EU, making a Yes vote on Lisbon II more unlikely; however this decision should be welcomed in general.

Another downside to the decision is that it's likely that Mr. Malikos will be staying in Ireland now.

Do you think it's a pity when the government of an EU state acts illegally and corrupt and gets called out for it?
This is probably one of few times that the EU checks the excesses of the Irish government and Irish people should be happy that there is a system in place to protect you from such intransigence.
Now if they would just get onto the intentional slowdown of justice in processing visa's, VRT, Corporate tax, bad housing standards, bad food standards, anti competative corruption and cartels then living standards in this place would vastly improve and might resemble something of what most continentals enjoy.

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, but VRT? Vehicle Registration Tax? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think the Revenue have absolutely no slowdown at all, in reeling in this controversial tax.