New Irish case reported by the Irish times

[Morrisj]

Anyone care to read the latest court case between non eu parent and Irish parent,my phone wont allow me upload the link but you can find a copy reported by the Irish times.I am happy there are still judges like Hogan because last year Judge cooke and one other judge ruled against similar cases like the Ugbolease and Ugbo's case atleast the judgment of yesterday by Hogan automatically means the Reference made by Austria is crap and its effect will never be use in Ireland. Peace

[Tandor]

[quote]AN IRISH woman, her Nigerian husband and Irish-born daughter have won their High Court challenge to an order for his deportation made while the woman was pregnant with the child.

The man had already been deported.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan found the Minister for Justice’s decision to deport the man, an architectural student, effectively amounted to a permanent forcible separation of the family and the Minister had not fairly weighed their family rights.

It was “soberingâ€

[IrishTom]

I cant wait to cut their salary.

Deport all failed asylum seekers and their anchor babies.

[IQU]

i think irishtom you dont have any clue what is family mean.because s... bag like you grow up around the quays.i think you clearly dont like foriegners.your such a raciast.

[flatpack]

Agree

i think irishtom you dont have any clue what is family mean.because s... bag like you grow up around the quays.i think you clearly dont like foriegners.your such a raciast.

[walrusgumble]

Anyone care to read the latest court case between non eu parent and Irish parent,my phone wont allow me upload the link but you can find a copy reported by the Irish times.I am happy there are still judges like Hogan because last year Judge cooke and one other judge ruled against similar cases like the Ugbolease and Ugbo's case atleast the judgment of yesterday by Hogan automatically means the Reference made by Austria is crap and its effect will never be use in Ireland. Peace

It won't apply to them, because this case was considered under IRISH DOMESTIC LAW! The clue is in the article. Your comment is utterly at odds with the CJEU. But, yes, Dercie, a case that won't be considered for years, will not concern these people nor would it concern people currently waiting. But when it does come out, it will apply to others in the future . Your giving the misleading impression that the European Courts could not over rule a national court on a EU law issue. (Here the case was considered under Irish Law)

1. This case was considered under Irish Constitutional Law; Judge Hogan is one of the most prominent experts in this are. He was one of the main Barristers for applicant's in the famous cases in the 1990-2000's

2. The Judge looked at the Constitutional issues between HUSBAND AND WIFE and Article 41 of the CONSTITUTION. It proves, that despite previous cases, that IRISH LAW itself can protect people in these positions.

3. In any case in Ireland, the Court look first at whether a case is ruled on legislation. If need be, it looks at the Constitution. If the Judge rules in favour of the Applicants on Constitutional Grounds, they don't bother to consider EU law. But obviously, its the next port of call after considering the Constitution. The facts of cases in Ugbolease and Ugbo's are slightly different

wife is an Irish citizen and mother of two girls, one from a previous relationship and the second, fathered by the Nigerian man, born some months ago. Mr Justice Hogan said while the Minister was made aware the woman was pregnant with the man’s child, it was unsatisfactory certain other vital information was not supplied to the Minister or court or was supplied late, including about the couple’s marriage and the wife’s circumstances. Despite that, it seemed the wife has limited financial resources and has been left to manage the children on her own.

The facts in this case, the Minister clear did not properly consider the fact that the Irish Wife had children from another relationship. Why would they be expected to go to Nigeria to be with a man who is not their father? Why would they leave their own country for this? Don't they have their father in Ireland? That is known as an "insurmountable obstacle".

It would have been an interesting out come, if it could have been shown that the Minister DID adequately consider all issues fairly and properly. He clearly did not in this case. But if he did, and adequately gave reasons (it would be very hard to do so, in light of the facts of this case) the courts, under Irish law, might not have been able to do much. But, then, that would be where Zambrano might be considered.

The judge also noted that when the man was deported, his wife was two months pregnant with their child, who was entitled to Irish citizenship. Addressing whether the order infringed the constitutional protection of family rights, the test was whether the Minister considered all the circumstances in a fair and proper manner and reached a reasonable and proportionate decision.

4. There was little or no reference to EU law in this case, there was not a need too.

5. Even if that Dercie v Austria case was ruled in favour of Austria, there would be absolutely nothing stopping a country like Ireland to ignore that judge and still give more favourable protection to an applicant that would normally fall within Dercie

6. The Courts could not, even if it wanted too, consider Dercie, because it is not law, it has not been decided. Zambrano applies in full until then.

7. Even if EU law was considered and applied, the National Courts need only look at the current CJEU cases ie Zambrano

8. If the judgment in Dercie came out tomorrow, your comment is utterly incorrect and is complete wishful thinking. This judgement, if it had considered EU in full, is only a judgment of the National Courts. CJEU have consistently always says, the question of EU law is a matter SOLELY FOR the CJEU and not the Member States. If Dercie ruled for Austria, ALL MEMBER STATES must follow that Judgement, just like all Member States are expected to follow Zambrano.

Even if, Dercie ruled against an applicant tomorrow, it would be likely that the Minister would revoke any residency permits to those that would be effected by Dercie. It could always issue it under domestic law.

9. If Dercie came out next week eg, and the Minister grants status to the readers here, in full today, Dercie would unlikely apply to them anyway. Law tries to prevent retrospective application of laws.

10. Any comment like the original, that Dercie or any future EU case is useless to Ireland (It is now at this time of course, but I am referring to the future), must be meet with proper links to back them up, even wikipedia. Because the notion that EU case law is not binding on all States, even if it was a Article 267 TFEU case (like Dercie and like Zambrano or Metock etc ie most important cases are Article 267 TFEU) means an absolute dishonest/ignorant understanding of the basic elements of EU law. You provide no constructive argument if you fail to do this, and should be considered a crank or a hack (that refers to everyone)

11. It is unlikely that CJEU will rule in favour of Austria anyway, even if legal arguments (as oppose to moral or political) out weights their aims.

12. Just to confirm, the above is legal facts , here, point 11 and point 12 are my own personal opinion - in light of the facts of the linked case, it Hogan's interpretation of IRISH LAW is completely spot on.

[walrusgumble]

I cant wait to cut their salary.

Deport all failed asylum seekers and their anchor babies.

That attitude is EXACTLY the reason for opposition towards that referendum.

Judges' job is to make decisions, which may often be unpopular among the populists. A politician will now have a say over this. All that needs to be done is get a lot of average mindless parish pump idiots, who really should not be allowed to vote, to pressure another mindless parish pump idiot TD to seek to change the rules when against a judge when it does not suit them.

What the mindless idiot parish pump politician and voter forgets, is that the Judge is only interpreting the law which was enacted by the politician and public.

[walrusgumble]

i think irishtom you dont have any clue what is family mean.because s... bag like you grow up around the quays.i think you clearly dont like foriegners.your such a raciast.

"ecause s... bag like you grow up around the quays."

And what are you? Generalization, much?

How do you know that he grew up along the quays? There would be plenty of "dearly beloved" living in leafy Dublin 4 and 6 too you know. Maybe the quays are quite lovely, considering all the redevelopment (not really) I know people who live along the Dublin quays and they are neither dearly beloved or horrible people.

Considering the old prejudicial view taken of the Irish by eg Elite British as some sort of peasant, and Quays suggest something wrong/sinister. If your comment was taken seriously, in this context, that could be regarded as beloved against an Irish person. What do you think?

[fatty patty]

Wise move by the judge and fair play to him. The case is pretty much like Zambrano but atleast now it put this argument to bed that if one of the party is local citizen no need for the foreign husband/wife to stay here and it will not deprive any rights. Don't understand as to why DOJ pursued that case in courts could they not see Zambrano and the European courts attitude towards it. Even though this is domestic immigration case at least the families who were deported before can use this as a reference and lodge an appeal.

[Morrisj]

@wals i never invited u but since its a general board for discussing&sharing opinions/idea,il let u away with but after u finish reading,u'll be like whoz this dude,note when u do that cos then u il know wisdom from God(whom u dnt believe)is richer than wealth itself.How many i.d,do u have here?who you fooling?them or me?lol you are same person using Irishtom(one of ids to show the real you) you as Irish tom said Asylum seekers&anchors no diff. with that of you as walsgrumble except using the law to cover

[Morrisj]

@wals and where you?when I raised up the topic?or decided to use Irishtom and give it a day before using walgrumbe and what even made me nearly bang my head laughing,u explainin to urself(walsgrumble to Irishtom)lol dnt give me that cos i know mr wals is mostly online mon-fri except sat/sun precise mr wals wont give a topic like this a day or two before replying so Mr wals where were you?where you using the Irishtom id?hahaha relax dont panic

[Morrisj]

Mr wals am still waiting for you to prove me wrong or u are shocked now and want to make a remorse well if you dnt want to make a remorse and continue your wicked ways then always be careful from making silly mistakes,see you should have use the irishtom id to reply back to IQU instead of using walsgrumble cos when you made that mistake,it was like Walsgrumble id the legal rep of Irishtom id& its just one person.IQU called irishtom a dearly beloved,walsgrumble had to reply lol are u gona reply now with Irishtom?

[Morrisj]

@wals ???? no comment?really nice to see Irishtom id never said deport all foreigners instead used the exact words Mr wals always use(asylum seekers and anchors)Irishtom would have said foreigners but just as walsgrumble claimed he doesnt have problem with legals,thats why the two ids are using same doctrine(asylum seekers and anchores)one person,same mind using two ids,anyways care to say whom you are referring to as Pump parish idiots?i know it but u dare say for better understanding to others?hahaha

[Monifé]

Mr wals am still waiting for you to prove me wrong or u are shocked now and want to make a remorse well if you dnt want to make a remorse and continue your wicked ways then always be careful from making silly mistakes,see you should have use the irishtom id to reply back to IQU instead of using walsgrumble cos when you made that mistake,it was like Walsgrumble id the legal rep of Irishtom id& its just one person.IQU called irishtom a dearly beloved,walsgrumble had to reply lol are u gona reply now with Irishtom?

I think you are totally wrong. I have had run-in's and debates with both people and they are definitely not the same person.

Also, I don't mean to sound rude (and I know I am not a MOD but I am sure others will agree with me), can you please not type in TEXT language and in plain English as it is hard to understand.

[knapps]

I am a very long user of this forum and most of you know me.

I think when a person is given notice of deportation he has a right to appeal in the Court. If appeal fails and he is deported that means justice served at that time.

Now, what I have seen or read here that most of failed asylum seekers buy a bride or marry with so called love, make babies to strengthen their cases.

I am a non EU myself and waiting on my decision as well. But I think we have to be fair here. Nothing against the judgement as he does have a daughter now and I think he should be with her. But , I am addressing to the facts prior to this.

I know people will disagree with me but It is only my personal opinion. Yes, previous Govt made a lot of mistakes that still needs to be apologized by them

[walrusgumble]

Wise move by the judge and fair play to him. The case is pretty much like Zambrano but atleast now it put this argument to bed that if one of the party is local citizen no need for the foreign husband/wife to stay here and it will not deprive any rights. Don't understand as to why DOJ pursued that case in courts could they not see Zambrano and the European courts attitude towards it. Even though this is domestic immigration case at least the families who were deported before can use this as a reference and lodge an appeal.

You could say, the case is like Fajounu 1990 Irish Supreme Court, which if you look at its judgment, is identical reasoning that influenced Zambrano

[walrusgumble]

Wise move by the judge and fair play to him. The case is pretty much like Zambrano but atleast now it put this argument to bed that if one of the party is local citizen no need for the foreign husband/wife to stay here and it will not deprive any rights. Don't understand as to why DOJ pursued that case in courts could they not see Zambrano and the European courts attitude towards it. Even though this is domestic immigration case at least the families who were deported before can use this as a reference and lodge an appeal.

THe case was initiated before Zambrano was heard. Minister clearly say an argument to limit Zambrano.

There was no discussion of Zambrano and EU law in this case, as it can be seen, the Judge reached a decision under Irish law.

[walrusgumble]

@wals i never invited u but since its a general board for discussing&sharing opinions/idea,il let u away with but after u finish reading,u'll be like whoz this dude,note when u do that cos then u il know wisdom from God(whom u dnt believe)is richer than wealth itself.How many i.d,do u have here?who you fooling?them or me?lol you are same person using Irishtom(one of ids to show the real you) you as Irish tom said Asylum seekers&anchors no diff. with that of you as walsgrumble except using the law to cover

I don't care whether you invited me or not. It is not your call. This is a public site.

You or anyone should not be allowed to go unchallenged spouting comments that are incorrect. If you feel that my comments are incorrect, you are free to discuss them. But in such a case, you are expected, due to your track record of making basic errors and groundless claims, (or others on your behalf), are expected to support your argument.

You commented that Dercie is irrelevant. You are wrong. I have explained why. I don't expect you to get it, you don't have the capability or desire to do so.

I know for a fact that you have not read the judgment. You have clearly not read the link properly either.

If you think I am Irish Tom, I suggest that you contact the Moderator. The fact that you are using such a ridiculous comment says an awful lot about you. Stick to the bible, please or actually deal with the points made.

Morris, go now and actually address what I have said in the above post. If you want insults, I will happily oblige, so too to embarrass you among your peers. Just deal with what I actually said.

[Morrisj]

@monife life's too short am not perfect if am wrong i can still apologize to the parties involved in my previous statement but not until theres a ''substantial'' proof,it is what it is cos the co-incidence and analysis is less likely to be wrong and if you dont understand what am writting?are u speaking for others?sure thats my phone's fault not mine.Yes u may be right saying you had a debate with the two user ids but does that mean u had a debate with two different individuals?give me better a proof

[Obie]

I think this case is very important, and adds a lot to the possible interpretation of Zambrano.

It is important to note that EU law has to be interpreted in the light of the Charter of Fundamental right.

Article 7 of the charter spoke about the right of every person to respect of private and family life. Therefore, even though this ruling dealt with Article 8 of the ECHR, the principles can be applied to Zambrano read in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental rights.

[Morrisj]

@wals listen i dont really care if you are Irishtom and to be completely honest IQU shouldnt have gone far calling irishtom(which i think is you) a dearly beloved because the Irish Government has every right to deport failed asylum seekers and illegals but referring to the response from Wals to IQU,how did you mr wals could Just conclude Irishtom was Irish,he or she could be Britis/Irish or concluded with just the name?cos the location is unknown and how can the moderator prove it to me?moderator pls any prove?

[Morrisj]

Opinion about the judgement would be even if domestic law hadnt been used,zambrano would ve applied but now there's a clear picture that Ecj is somehow giving a bit of hardship to domestic measures.The dept was not wrong trying the case in court as someone said because they are trying to prevent cases where an Irish girl could someday have different babies for different non eu nationals and each claiming right but in this case the couple were married precise the dept made same error on stronger cases

[Morrisj]

so a typical case like the one i stated above where there are different babies to different non eu parents of whom none of them is married to the union mother of the babies,then the state can make that a reference to EcJ perhaps Austrian reference on dereci was based on the fact she was on social welfare with the kids but they forgot to realise dependency means more than finance beside this can be argued against union parents who are working and can care for the family(the kids and non eu parent)

[walrusgumble]

I am a very long user of this forum and most of you know me.

I think when a person is given notice of deportation he has a right to appeal in the Court. If appeal fails and he is deported that means justice served at that time.

Now, what I have seen or read here that most of failed asylum seekers buy a bride or marry with so called love, make babies to strengthen their cases.

I am a non EU myself and waiting on my decision as well. But I think we have to be fair here. Nothing against the judgement as he does have a daughter now and I think he should be with her. But , I am addressing to the facts prior to this.

I know people will disagree with me but It is only my personal opinion. Yes, previous Govt made a lot of mistakes that still needs to be apologized by them

Here lies the problem with people's expectations of the Irish Courts.

There is no appeal, per se, to the Court.

You can challenge the decision of the Minister at Court. Trust me, there is a major difference. Sorry to sound picky.

Judicial Review, will assess all information and documentation put before the Minister when he is considering a decision. So long as the Minister has applied the law correctly, applied fair procedures, and come to a conclusion in light of what is before him or what should be known, the Courts may not be able to do anything.

They are expected to give reasons for refusal. This must be rational etc

Why I meant by , it is not an appeal per se, is that the Court can't substitute its own views with that of the Minister, provided that Minister has come to legitimate opinion.

In the case, involving the link, the Minister not only failed to come to a rational opinion, but clearly failed to really consider the case at all, with regard to the rights of the wife. (If pushed, the courts might have looked at Zambrano)

[walrusgumble]

@wals listen i dont really care if you are Irishtom and to be completely honest IQU shouldnt have gone far calling irishtom(which i think is you) a dearly beloved because the Irish Government has every right to deport failed asylum seekers and illegals but referring to the response from Wals to IQU,how did you mr wals could Just conclude Irishtom was Irish,he or she could be Britis/Irish or concluded with just the name?cos the location is unknown and how can the moderator prove it to me?moderator pls any prove?

You don't really care if he is, but you have no problem making libelous comments though.

Do your self a favour, don't try and go down that road, don't try and play smart alex with me. You and every other person on this threat knows you will get burned. Your not cut out for such talk and I will only embarrass you. . You've got nothing to say regarding my earlier post in light of your first comments, I suggest you say nothing.

Sad to see that you spent 1-2 hours waiting anxiously for my reply earlier. (Working by the way).

Provide evidence that shows that I am dearly beloved. A person disagrees with you, so they are dearly beloved. You know what Morris, the race card clearly worked in other countries, in order to get your way. It will not work in Ireland. FOr your own safety in the real world, I would suggest that you drop that crap, unless you can prove it.

As for IrishTom, he is Irish and he is known on other sites. No please return to matters that you do understand, Sherlock

The reason your asked to prove it, is because you have failed to back up what you have said, commented on well known facts and rubbished them when it does not suit you, yet when one responds back , you say nothing. One can only assume then, that you have nothing to say on that.