Link to Dereci Judgment

[walrusgumble]

Dereci Judgment.

Unless discussion about the case, and only the case, no comments are welcome.

[Rip v Winkle]

I’ve read through the Judgement. It is pretty much what I would have expected. The questions were narrow, requesting clarification, and seemed to come from the Austrian Administrative Court itself.
I’d like to see what decision the Austrian Court finally takes. Does anyone know why Bundesministerium is trying to deport these people?
It looks strange. There was a 2009 case (Verwaltungsgerichtshof Zl. A 2009/0047-1 (2009/21/0311) that was referred to the Austrian Constitutional Court. They, in turn, recommended that certain clauses relating to issuing of “prohibition to remain” orders be amended so that an individual could not be treated less favourably simply because his father had the “wrong citizenship” ie Austrian. They remarked that it was paradoxical that acquisition of Austrian citizenship by the young man’s father (formerly Turkish) could turn out to be harmful. It seemed to be unconstitutional.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have any rational explanation ?
For me “reverse discrimination” can only be dealt with by individual member states. After all, it is the member state’s own citizens who suffer any adverse effects. If the political Union were closer that might change.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have a rational explanation ?

[walrusgumble]

I’ve read through the Judgement. It is pretty much what I would have expected. The questions were narrow, requesting clarification, and seemed to come from the Austrian Administrative Court itself.
I’d like to see what decision the Austrian Court finally takes. Does anyone know why Bundesministerium is trying to deport these people?
It looks strange. There was a 2009 case (Verwaltungsgerichtshof Zl. A 2009/0047-1 (2009/21/0311) that was referred to the Austrian Constitutional Court. They, in turn, recommended that certain clauses relating to issuing of “prohibition to remain” orders be amended so that an individual could not be treated less favourably simply because his father had the “wrong citizenship” ie Austrian. They remarked that it was paradoxical that acquisition of Austrian citizenship by the young man’s father (formerly Turkish) could turn out to be harmful. It seemed to be unconstitutional.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have any rational explanation ?
For me “reverse discrimination” can only be dealt with by individual member states. After all, it is the member state’s own citizens who suffer any adverse effects. If the political Union were closer that might change.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have a rational explanation ?

EU law has no right to interfere with the immigration laws of a national country, where, it is not provided for under EU law. The sooner people cop onto that the better. That is essentially what McCarthy and Dereci accepts but just throw a bone regarding ECHR, which they already have to consider. If you want EU law to kick in, the Irish person should at least make an attempt to exercise their rights and move, its the cleanest and certain way.

It is clear where the major member states think of this, as too the Commission, in that the traditional notion of free movement is not dead, yet. And yes, you are right "reverse discrimination" is a matter for national courts, in this context.

Anything else, let it be for the National Courts under National Laws, with consideration, if any , of ECHR. Whatever they decide is valid, so be it.


Why the restrictions are in place? To put it bluntly, to stop encouraging relationships starting or being used as a side step into the immigration system for failed asylum seekers and illegals. THat is the reality! Many of these people (regardless of their colour, race etc) would never have got a visa or work permit had they tried to enter the country in a legitimate manner. (we all know this, so don't get all high and mighty. Its a factual statement and not a statement trying to insult)

[Regulator56]

I’ve read through the Judgement. It is pretty much what I would have expected. The questions were narrow, requesting clarification, and seemed to come from the Austrian Administrative Court itself.
I’d like to see what decision the Austrian Court finally takes. Does anyone know why Bundesministerium is trying to deport these people?
It looks strange. There was a 2009 case (Verwaltungsgerichtshof Zl. A 2009/0047-1 (2009/21/0311) that was referred to the Austrian Constitutional Court. They, in turn, recommended that certain clauses relating to issuing of “prohibition to remain” orders be amended so that an individual could not be treated less favourably simply because his father had the “wrong citizenship” ie Austrian. They remarked that it was paradoxical that acquisition of Austrian citizenship by the young man’s father (formerly Turkish) could turn out to be harmful. It seemed to be unconstitutional.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have any rational explanation ?
For me “reverse discrimination” can only be dealt with by individual member states. After all, it is the member state’s own citizens who suffer any adverse effects. If the political Union were closer that might change.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have a rational explanation ?

EU law has no right to interfere with the immigration laws of a national country, where, it is not provided for under EU law. The sooner people cop onto that the better. That is essentially what McCarthy and Dereci accepts but just throw a bone regarding ECHR, which they already have to consider. If you want EU law to kick in, the Irish person should at least make an attempt to exercise their rights and move, its the cleanest and certain way.

It is clear where the major member states think of this, as too the Commission, in that the traditional notion of free movement is not dead, yet. And yes, you are right "reverse discrimination" is a matter for national courts, in this context.

Anything else, let it be for the National Courts under National Laws, with consideration, if any , of ECHR. Whatever they decide is valid, so be it.


Why the restrictions are in place? To put it bluntly, to stop encouraging relationships starting or being used as a side step into the immigration system for failed asylum seekers and illegals. THat is the reality! Many of these people (regardless of their colour, race etc) would never have got a visa or work permit had they tried to enter the country in a legitimate manner. (we all know this, so don't get all high and mighty. Its a factual statement and not a statement trying to insult)

Mr Walrusgamble, I am not sure if anyone has ever told you that the manner in which you reply to people on this forum is very rude and sometimes comes across as ignorant. Your posts are indicative of someone with an agenda, majority of posters know this and if you notice, people largely ignore your posts these days.

There was no where in R vs Winkle's post that came across as high and mighty as you put it. We know you are overjoyed withe Dereci ruling, but it is not as clear cut as you are imagining.

I agree with you that the EU does not have the right to interfere with national immigration unless provisions are made under EU law. As you would know, as the union gets more politically integrated, more provisions would be made that would supersede national immigration laws.

You don't need to get your knickers in a twist and be pontificating about why member states are putting in place restrictions- as you put it , its all about illegals and asylum seekers.

It is very rich coming from you and your line of thought about national sovereignty when the German parliament (Bundestag) has seen, examined and signed off the Irish budget before the Irish parliament and indeed the Irish people have had a clue about the design of the front cover.

My friend get used to it! In your lifetime, immigration policies would continue to benefit EU citizens and their families. The despicable act of constructively deporting EU children from Ireland is a thing of the past.

You said cases of these nature should be left to national courts to decide and whatever their decision - so be it...In your dreams Walrusgamble!..cases would continue to go to the ECJ and ECHR for adjudication and irresponsible governments would continue to be disgraced and have to pay heavy litigation costs like the Metock case.

I would advise you to accept change because you would become hypertensive at a young age with disappointments- the world has changed so should you!

[Rip v Winkle]

Why the restrictions are in place? To put it bluntly, to stop encouraging relationships starting or being used as a side step into the immigration system for failed asylum seekers and illegals. THat is the reality! Many of these people (regardless of their colour, race etc) would never have got a visa or work permit had they tried to enter the country in a legitimate manner. (we all know this, so don't get all high and mighty. Its a factual statement and not a statement trying to insult).

I am not insulted.
However, and please correct me if I am wrong, I understand that all an Irish citizen has to do to engage "freedom of movement" rights is to live for a period (I've seen three months quoted as minimum) in some town just across the border in Northern Ireland. Newry is within easy reach of the biggest centres of employment in the Republic. A similar situation applies along the internal borders of most of the contintental members of the EU.
This does not seem to be much of a barrier to someone who has structured his or her life to circumvent immigration controls- failed asylum seekers etc.
Reverse discrimination looks like a "shotgun approach" to the problem - lots of noise, fails to do much damage to the target and causes disproportionate damage to unintended targets. Not to mention that , in my opinion, it offends against the spirit of Article 40.1 of our constitution.
Has the Minister for Justice ever stated what he is trying to achieve? The Immigration act merely identifies treaty rights as one of the factors that must be taken into account when granting whatever stamp is applicable .

I did manage to find out a bit more about Dereci + the other cases. The Austrian Minister for the Interior (she is now Mnister for Finance) Maria Fekter has said that she intended to move against long established undocumented residents http://austrianindependent.com/news/Pol ... s_minister.

While I hope that the Austrian courts find against the Ministry and I disagree completely with most of what she is quoted as saying, at least she has the honesty to state that this is policy. It is not something that we must guess at.

[walrusgumble]

I’ve read through the Judgement. It is pretty much what I would have expected. The questions were narrow, requesting clarification, and seemed to come from the Austrian Administrative Court itself.
I’d like to see what decision the Austrian Court finally takes. Does anyone know why Bundesministerium is trying to deport these people?
It looks strange. There was a 2009 case (Verwaltungsgerichtshof Zl. A 2009/0047-1 (2009/21/0311) that was referred to the Austrian Constitutional Court. They, in turn, recommended that certain clauses relating to issuing of “prohibition to remain” orders be amended so that an individual could not be treated less favourably simply because his father had the “wrong citizenship” ie Austrian. They remarked that it was paradoxical that acquisition of Austrian citizenship by the young man’s father (formerly Turkish) could turn out to be harmful. It seemed to be unconstitutional.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have any rational explanation ?
For me “reverse discrimination” can only be dealt with by individual member states. After all, it is the member state’s own citizens who suffer any adverse effects. If the political Union were closer that might change.
Having said that, I am very much against it. I can’t see what interest is served by excluding Irish citizens from “freedom of movement” privileges. Does anyone have a rational explanation ?

EU law has no right to interfere with the immigration laws of a national country, where, it is not provided for under EU law. The sooner people cop onto that the better. That is essentially what McCarthy and Dereci accepts but just throw a bone regarding ECHR, which they already have to consider. If you want EU law to kick in, the Irish person should at least make an attempt to exercise their rights and move, its the cleanest and certain way.

It is clear where the major member states think of this, as too the Commission, in that the traditional notion of free movement is not dead, yet. And yes, you are right "reverse discrimination" is a matter for national courts, in this context.

Anything else, let it be for the National Courts under National Laws, with consideration, if any , of ECHR. Whatever they decide is valid, so be it.


Why the restrictions are in place? To put it bluntly, to stop encouraging relationships starting or being used as a side step into the immigration system for failed asylum seekers and illegals. THat is the reality! Many of these people (regardless of their colour, race etc) would never have got a visa or work permit had they tried to enter the country in a legitimate manner. (we all know this, so don't get all high and mighty. Its a factual statement and not a statement trying to insult)

Mr Walrusgamble, I am not sure if anyone has ever told you that the manner in which you reply to people on this forum is very rude and sometimes comes across as ignorant. Your posts are indicative of someone with an agenda, majority of posters know this and if you notice, people largely ignore your posts these days.

There was no where in R vs Winkle's post that came across as high and mighty as you put it. We know you are overjoyed withe Dereci ruling, but it is not as clear cut as you are imagining.

I agree with you that the EU does not have the right to interfere with national immigration unless provisions are made under EU law. As you would know, as the union gets more politically integrated, more provisions would be made that would supersede national immigration laws.

You don't need to get your knickers in a twist and be pontificating about why member states are putting in place restrictions- as you put it , its all about illegals and asylum seekers.

It is very rich coming from you and your line of thought about national sovereignty when the German parliament (Bundestag) has seen, examined and signed off the Irish budget before the Irish parliament and indeed the Irish people have had a clue about the design of the front cover.

My friend get used to it! In your lifetime, immigration policies would continue to benefit EU citizens and their families. The despicable act of constructively deporting EU children from Ireland is a thing of the past.

You said cases of these nature should be left to national courts to decide and whatever their decision - so be it...In your dreams Walrusgamble!..cases would continue to go to the ECJ and ECHR for adjudication and irresponsible governments would continue to be disgraced and have to pay heavy litigation costs like the Metock case.

I would advise you to accept change because you would become hypertensive at a young age with disappointments- the world has changed so should you!

I would suggest that you speak for your self, point out what was being rude and I will happily explain to you the clear misunderstanding that you have created. If you will notice, any discussion with Rip, from previous posts, have been cordial, in fact! There is nothing really substantial in our discussion that we disagree with in relation to this case.

I will now address the specific comments that you have made. You can take it or leave it thereafter. If you have nothing to add in relation to this case after this post, refrain from discussing on this particular thread.

There is nothing ignorant on what I said. I won't go mollificollding fact. You will be told in an honest and straight forward fashion. If you asked a government minister why they do it, you will get lies and you won't get an honest answer, surely you have been long enough in this State to realise that?

I make no personal comment on it, but that is the answer to Rip's Question. That answer is absolutely no different to any other EU country.

The policy of the government or Dept of Justice is exactly what I have said. Can you suggest another way in how that should have been said, that won't offend?

In Dercei, all the court did was mention ECHR, something a country has to do anyway, was simply a sop, "a sorry we can't help but here you go"

As for "high and mighty" statement, that was certainly not directed towards Rip, but other readers, like you, who I anticipated would that what I said out of context and deal with one isolated line. You took it hook line and sinker. It justifies why I addressed such readers in my reply to RIP.

Now for the ignorant bit. Ignorant as in rude (I really did not intend to do so), or ignorant as I do not know what I am talking about. I would suggest you immediately refrain from embarrassing yourself, if the latter, as I would easily rebut that.

You can ignore the posts, but it does not make one bit of difference, I am quite often on the mark and accurate as to what I have said. If a reader wants to that note of what I say, they will easily find some way around the problems raised by me, as oppose to running head on first, blindly, hoping that opinions of some people are incorrect.

What part of Dereci do you not understand or believe its not clear cut?. You should, by the way have acknowledged that I too, expressed disastifcation as to some ambigous matters from that case, in the other posts on Dercei

As for agenda; It is a sad day when people like your good self attempt to blight a person , when all they are doing is responding to absolute legal and political self serving nonsense and extremely inflammatory and highly inaccuracies that I have read in many threads on this site and that chap who wrote the "reverse discrimination" website. That chap sadly failed to understand this "so called discrimination on IRISH Civil Servants who actually are obligated to work in other countries, representing the State - No doubt won't say a thing when its correctly pointed out that he / she is wrong)

cases of these nature should be left to national courts to decide and whatever their decision - so be it..."In your dreams Walrusgamble!..cases would continue to go to the ECJ and ECHR for adjudication and irresponsible governments would continue to be disgraced and have to pay heavy litigation costs like the Metock case. "

Please do yourself a favour and don't comment on something that you do not clearly understand. The words I used were, "whatever their decision, so be it". That means if the Irish Courts decide in an Immigrant's favour, so be it. Its possible that an Irish Court Might return to the days, of Fajunounu. I have explained many times, my opposition is the EU intervention when its not permitted by their own rules. If an Irish Court agree or disagree, so be it.

Yes, cases, will go to ECJ, but very few will on the basis of parentage of an Irish citizen child, because

(a) Most parents have got status
(b) Its highly likely many parents after 2004 rules, will be legal (so no problems)
(c) as Per A, any other cases, in this area, won't really effect Ireland too much,

By the way, I have already acknowledged that this won't be the end, as highlighted in other threads, but most of the answers needed, strictly in this context, have already being answered now.

As for ECHR, again, your correct, but how many will have the money to do this as they go through the whole national process, not cheap!, (unlike ECJ where a court can make a reference)


"I agree with you that the EU does not have the right to interfere with national immigration unless provisions are made under EU law. As you would know, as the union gets more politically integrated, more provisions would be made that would supersede national immigration laws.

You don't need to get your knickers in a twist and be pontificating about why member states are putting in place restrictions- as you put it , its all about illegals and asylum seekers."

I assure you that I am not getting my knickers in a twist. My comments are a reminder of long drawn out arguments made by other posters in other threads, in relation to the supposed status of the EU citizenship held so dearly by the Courts and the obvious difference of opinion of the Member States. You, see, they , for obvious reasons rubbished previous discussion. It, again is not intended to offend, it is an explanation to RIP as to why Ireland, and others takes the attitude it does. If its so obvious, why did RIP ask?


And now for the absolute ridiculous crap. Readers were well responded to regarding the the ridiculous comments on Irish in America etc and trying, laughably comparing both.

You said

"It is very rich coming from you and your line of thought about national sovereignty when the German parliament (Bundestag) has seen, examined and signed off the Irish budget before the Irish parliament and indeed the Irish people have had a clue about the design of the front cover."


Just remember a number of things here ya; It is in German self interest to ensure that the Euro works. They and the French are the ones who made huge and reckless investments into countries like Ireland by way of providing cheap loans. Something that they don't like talking about Its what got them out of their recession in the mid 2000's , while we were squandering our struck of luck.

Secondly, what has this got to do with free movement of people ?. Germans have full rights here. If they have non eu family , regardless of their nationality, they will get them in due to their actions. French are bailing out their banks by the way. Germans don't care how we deal with non nationals, they have the same policy on "reverse discrimination" by the way.

In case you still have not copt on, Irish government are doing pretty much everything that is being asked of Germany right now. There is co-operation

You said
"My friend get used to it! In your lifetime, immigration policies would continue to benefit EU citizens and their families. The despicable act of constructively deporting EU children from Ireland is a thing of the past.

I am not against immigration. I have no problem with legal immigrants. I do have a problem with people who abuse the asylum procedure though. If you want to come to Ireland do so in the correct manner.

The status of EU citizenship as espoused by limited cases of Zambrano, for now, has taken a bit of a reversal in favor of member states, so its too early for predictions.

Now that all of that is clear, I hope we can limit our discussion, solely on the merits of Dercei.

[Morrisj]

Finally the truth is revealing itself,I thought i was the only person taking note of mr ...'s smart/disgusting/unacceptable comments.
Dereci-first of all Mr dereci's case was slightly differentiated from the other cases involved because there was a spousal ties and relationship with the children.The only reason it was brought up among other cases,was because of the strict policy on Turkish nationals(Ankara policy) Infact the Judge had to use dereci's case to uphold geniune activity(His kids/Art 7/ECHR)

[Morrisj]

On the other hand,I am not saying ECJ should interfere with national measures infact breaking an immigration rule is a complete offence but hey check this out-You keep saying there's no need for the other non-eu parent if the other parent is a national of a memberstate(i.e the child's right won't be deprived) but ask yourself this-Did Ecj rule in Zambrano that only one of the parents(both non eu)is allowed to stay with the child or both?or is the child's right not the main point?I Just need an answer

[Morrisj]

Infact to be completely honest,The Ecj Judge did not want a large amount of cost on the Austrian Goverment that is the only reason they somehow step aside dereci's case from other cases by using the Ankara policy.The ruling was for other cases linked to McCarthy and for others who have decided to bring secondary family members(their ancestors,grandparents E.t.c) turning immigration laws into a flood gate which i don't agree with.To round it up,Dereci means Adult cannot benefit from zambrano simple

[walrusgumble]

Why the restrictions are in place? To put it bluntly, to stop encouraging relationships starting or being used as a side step into the immigration system for failed asylum seekers and illegals. THat is the reality! Many of these people (regardless of their colour, race etc) would never have got a visa or work permit had they tried to enter the country in a legitimate manner. (we all know this, so don't get all high and mighty. Its a factual statement and not a statement trying to insult).

I am not insulted.
However, and please correct me if I am wrong, I understand that all an Irish citizen has to do to engage "freedom of movement" rights is to live for a period (I've seen three months quoted as minimum) in some town just across the border in Northern Ireland. Newry is within easy reach of the biggest centres of employment in the Republic. A similar situation applies along the internal borders of most of the contintental members of the EU.

Pretty much, yes. The practical reality is questionable though; will the spouse be able to show that she has exercised her treaty rights, ie comply with Article 7 of Directive 2004 / 38,

This does not seem to be much of a barrier to someone who has structured his or her life to circumvent immigration controls- failed asylum seekers etc.

Metock makes this easy, yes your are correct. Genuine relationships would go ahead with this, fakes won't. It still comes down to whether or not , after going to eg Newry, will EU person get a job.

Your comment is an example of the tone of attitude taken by the ECJ in McCarthy. She did not bother to move, they say, sure on an EU context, you and your hubby should be grand. The court did not possible Zambrano like effect but don't give examples.

Reverse discrimination looks like a "shotgun approach" to the problem - lots of noise, fails to do much damage to the target and causes disproportionate damage to unintended targets. Not to mention that , in my opinion, it offends against the spirit of Article 40.1 of our constitution.
Has the Minister for Justice ever stated what he is trying to achieve? The Immigration act merely identifies treaty rights as one of the factors that must be taken into account when granting whatever stamp is applicable .

It always was a shot gun approach, and only favored by the non EU person or the people advocating a Federal Europe.

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.

As for the Current Minister? I have seen no coherent policy. He took credit for work of another administration regarding the first batch of citizenship grants earlier this year, most of whom had already waited the 1 1/2 - 2 years. He has u - turned on the Zambrano declaration in March. He is has not offered to withdraw most of these cases in High Court. He might be more favorable under IRISH DOMESTIC LAW HOWEVER.

"Our Constitution" ? You Irish?

"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.

I did manage to find out a bit more about Dereci + the other cases. The Austrian Minister for the Interior (she is now Mnister for Finance) Maria Fekter has said that she intended to move against long established undocumented residents http://austrianindependent.com/news/Pol ... s_minister.

While I hope that the Austrian courts find against the Ministry and I disagree completely with most of what she is quoted as saying, at least she has the honesty to state that this is policy. It is not something that we must guess at.

I don't see how Austrian Courts will or can do much. Austrians will use the economic climate etc as an excuse. But it is a bit tricky with long established immigrants because Article 8 ECHR will be helpful. It depends on the facts of the case. Kosovo , I'm surprised with Austrian attitudes.

Returning to Rip's link on Austrian government, I thought Europe would be atoning to its complete uselessness and failures to tackle what went on there in the 1990's (EU explains, after all, the reason for more military response units ala Amsterdam Treaty, to specifically prevent incidents like Kosovo ever happening again)

Ireland? yes, a policy is needed. But the reason for failure to do one is not one I would hammer successive governments. The problem you see, Politicians won't touch this issue with a bare pole. The reason for this is because, if a group make an sensible,genuine and articulated answer that does not correspond or agree with the views of a minority un-elected representatives of PC Ireland, they will get branded as dearly beloved. Then you got people like Morris, who are unable to discuss and just throw that one off hoping it will stick.

[walrusgumble]

Infact to be completely honest,The Ecj Judge did not want a large amount of cost on the Austrian Goverment that is the only reason they somehow step aside dereci's case from other cases by using the Ankara policy.The ruling was for other cases linked to McCarthy and for others who have decided to bring secondary family members(their ancestors,grandparents E.t.c) turning immigration laws into a flood gate which i don't agree with.To round it up,Dereci means Adult cannot benefit from zambrano simple

I did not know that you had contacts with the Court of Justice of the European Union or privy to Judge's private deliberation. You are a dark horse

Maybe you should pick up the many well established and respected text books on EU law that you will find in many well stocked libraries to explain to you the basic elements of EU law. Or, you could always enlighten us with your understanding of the legal grounds that supports your case. (a bunch of dearly beloved no doubt)

What do you think the Commission's excuse was for, again, siding with the Member States? I can actually think of a reasonable conspiracy.

The Anakra Policy on the other hand, is a separate legal basis. It is a treaty between EU's and Turkey, an aspirant Member State. African and Asian nations, as you know are not.

Dercei (remember there were 3 other cases with Dercei) means, adult non eu's can't rely on Zambrano (and the child's citizenship), if the other parent is a national of the country which the child is also a citizen, and the family never moved. But, if both adult parents are non eu, then Zambrano should apply.

[Morrisj]

legal ground to support my case?What a dream,you are really in a world of illusion,get back to your senses.Back to my question and dont play smart,diverting from my question.Yes zambrano applies 100% if both parents are non eu,now to make it simple why didnt the Ecj Judge say one of the parents(both non eu)should stay with the child and use CHEN (getting residency and move to another memberstate where the other non eu parent can reunite with them,If the Judge was happy to see genuine family been seperated

[walrusgumble]

legal ground to support my case?What a dream,you are really in a world of illusion,get back to your senses.Back to my question and dont play smart,diverting from my question.Yes zambrano applies 100% if both parents are non eu,now to make it simple why didnt the Ecj Judge say one of the parents(both non eu)should stay with the child and use CHEN (getting residency and move to another memberstate where the other non eu parent can reunite with them,If the Judge was happy to see genuine family been seperated

you need to read my last post which directly quoted what you said. i can't say your talking crap as its not constructive so your asked to explain yourself.i actually directly dealt with what you said.there is no trickery.we are discussing law so provide law to support what you said, provide something at least.

[walrusgumble]

legal ground to support my case?What a dream,you are really in a world of illusion,get back to your senses.Back to my question and dont play smart,diverting from my question.Yes zambrano applies 100% if both parents are non eu,now to make it simple why didnt the Ecj Judge say one of the parents(both non eu)should stay with the child and use CHEN (getting residency and move to another memberstate where the other non eu parent can reunite with them,If the Judge was happy to see genuine family been seperated

chen only applies 1.where the eu child tries to reside in a country other than the country of birth,there, it was irish citizen in the uk.2.the parents in chen were self sufficient. chen was not applicable in dereci. the ecj was only obliged to answer specfic questions put to it and not act as an advisory to the applicants. chen is a very limited case like zambrano is.

[acme4242]

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.

[Morrisj]

@Wals please correct me if i am wrong. CHEN-The non eu parent can exercise the child's right by moving to another memberstate and on the basis of the child and self sufficiency(1 of the 3 qualifications) but as we both know thats unlikely possible for the non eu parent,This is not different from the case where a union citizen is required to move to another memberstate to get a job or become self sufficient.You need to go back to High School to learn what depriving a child means

[walrusgumble]

@Wals please correct me if i am wrong. CHEN-The non eu parent can exercise the child's right by moving to another memberstate and on the basis of the child and self sufficiency(1 of the 3 qualifications) but as we both know thats unlikely possible for the non eu parent,This is not different from the case where a union citizen is required to move to another memberstate to get a job or become self sufficient.You need to go back to High School to learn what depriving a child means

Chen: Yes, that is the correct understanding of Chen. As for the practical realities of Chen, you are correct, many parents won't be able to rely upon it, hence why I say it is limited. It was a once off. It has rarely being cited by domestic courts (no surprise really - but UK Tribunals have cited it regularly) or ECJ. It's similarity with a requirement of an Union needing to get work, yes, I suppose it is similar. After all, Article 7 of the directive provides it as another example of exercising eu rights.

What is your point? I am discussing what the actually law is, and not want you want it to be. Your telling me about deprivement? I think you need to have a word with the CJEU, by that logic so. Chen is totally irrelevant to this discussion, so its you who should be going to class. You have made no point here.

Depriving a child? Would you shut the f*ck up. The State has more than provided for these children and family through social welfare despite the requirement that the parents, via IBC 05 Scheme, to be economically efficient or in study.

Where is the deprivement?

The child is not asked to leave the country. As per Dereci & others , one of its parents (if an union citizen) can still live in the country. They are free to go to another EU state, if one of the parents is a Union Citizen and stay together, via Metock (sod off with Chen, the reality is that it does not work , so the parent better work). The child also possesses, most of the time, the nationality of the non eu parent, they can easily go back to the country of the non eu parent, if they really want to stay. If both parents are non eu parents, they can rely on Zambrano.


Thereafter, let these people be more responsible in family planning. Looking at the courts.ie caselaw, there are quite of few cases where a father of an Irish citizen child only developed an interest in their Irish citizen child by coming to Ireland only 2-5 years AFTER the birth of the child and after mother (who came alone, and pregnant) That is a long time without the father, don't you think? (its not every case, but I only highlight the numerous cases that actually made the court and challenged the laws). ECHR does not talk about deprivement of location, on the country it does not force a member state to respect the family's choice of location/residence, it concerns breaking up the family, in certain circumstances. Few EU citizens are going to be worried or care about those situations.


The EU have made it clear (and EU member states, most of whom have changed their citizenship laws since) that having babies won't always save you. (Again, its not intended to offend, its basically the attitudes taken by Member States and not just Ireland)

Oh wait, its probably dearly beloved to point these things out, sure.

Get back on track and discuss this Dereci case, or refrain from commenting on this thread.

[Morrisj]

While waiting for you to answer my previous question,I just thought i should lecture you properly.Mr Dereci's was differentiated from other çases-First of all,mr dereci was not an alien(third country national).Referrimg to (para.76-96) The judge stated,the law on aliens were applicable to the provisions on Turkish and Mr dereci had made use of of his freedom to establish by his marriage before NAG came in force(no diff.with the policy on romanians).Now one big question,were the other couples not married?

[Morrisj]

Zambrano-Ecj did not elaborate if one or both of the non eu parents can stay with the child,they rather took the best interest of the child to avoid second class Eu minors i.e Eu minors should not be deprived for any reason,regarding nationality and status of their parents.You need to stop criticising Alan Shatter cos he is as smart as Ecj,thus he said where there is intact relationship,there is a very little doubt the child is entitled to both parents.Ecj didnt say much about mr derec's Austrian kids

[walrusgumble]

While waiting for you to answer my previous question,I just thought i should lecture you properly.Mr Dereci's was differentiated from other çases-First of all,mr dereci was not an alien(third country national).Referrimg to (para.76-96) The judge stated,the law on aliens were applicable to the provisions on Turkish and Mr dereci had made use of of his freedom to establish by his marriage before NAG came in force(no diff.with the policy on romanians).Now one big question,were the other couples not married?

Before you start lecturing on a point that NO BODY is disputing, Read what I have said earlier. I have said, and will say again, The EU have a separate treaty with Turkish Nationals. Very few of you are Turkish Nationals. That part of the Dereci case has absolutely no relevance to you lot. There were 3 others that were linked to the preliminary reference. The reference to Dereci is only shorthand instead of having to type out all the names of the parties involved in the case.

Romanians fall under the EU Treaty, Turkish do not. It is a political and not a treaty limitation that was temporarily imposed on these people regarding their eu rights to freemovement. It still does not make them any less an EU citizen as me. Very few of ye are Romanian, either. There is no similarity between Turkish and Romanian position.

What do you mean by NAG?

What has marriage got to do with this? So long as your a couple, ye should be fine

[walrusgumble]

Zambrano-Ecj did not elaborate if one or both of the non eu parents can stay with the child,they rather took the best interest of the child to avoid second class Eu minors i.e Eu minors should not be deprived for any reason,regarding nationality and status of their parents.You need to stop criticising Alan Shatter cos he is as smart as Ecj,thus he said where there is intact relationship,there is a very little doubt the child is entitled to both parents.Ecj didnt say much about mr derec's Austrian kids

Zambrano paid considerable attention to the parent's position, and the unliklihood of them being able to return to Columbia. They noted the possibility of the child having Columbian nationality and accepted that they could not return, because, all though they did not get refugee status, the Belgians accepted that it was not safe for them, but left them in limbo. It may have been a different story if the Court accepted that the child could have a safe and decent living in the parents country and that the child was entitled to Columbian nationality. They might have accept that the interest of the child was not effected.

McCarthy and the Dercei & Others caselaw makes it clear that Zambrano only concerns the position where both parents or the parent is a non eu.



"minors i.e Eu minors should not be deprived for any reason,regarding nationality and status of their parents"

That will depend on what the courts will say if one of the parents had a serious criminal record, heavy emphasis on Article 8 ECHR. Zambrano never ruled out qualifications on this general stance.



Why do I need to stop criticising Alan Smasher? He has become a joke of a Minister, and I am not even talking about immigration, by the way. There is far more problems that he has caused. In fact, I commend him for his efforts on immigration.

But, looking at his immigration policy , well let's start then



1. He has allowed deportation orders to be drawn up without him personally signing them - against the law.
2. He took credit for citizenship decisions, that had little or nothing to do with him, decision were all ready due by the time he entered office. Decision had been made, only for him to sign off on.
3. He has now brought in an entry charge of €150ish for any body who wishes to make a citizenship application. Little of this money will be used to finance quicker decisions. It will not be refunded if you loose
4. He made a statement in March, shortly after Zambrano, showing clear evidence that he never spoke to his colleagues in the department as the the various different factual cases on their books. Now he has clearly implemented or allowed to implement a narrow definition of Zambrano.
5. He has allowed the cases in the High Court to continue, instead of withdrawing them
6. Over 6 months has passed, very few people, outside the stamp 1 and 3's have been given a decision on the basis of Zambrano
7. Under Irish law, why did he not withdraw the case involving an Irish Citizen (see the Irish Times Case Thread)? Or the recent O'Leary case (Hogan J) - (the one involving naturalised people seeking to bring their eldery non eu parents to Ireland)?
8. Family, ideally, should not be separated, but, why then do we hear that he does not want to give zambrano rights to fathers who returned to their country (persecution must be over, so. ) and now want to return to the family?

Ye, he is smart alright

The Derecei line of cases shows, that it is only in rare, exceptional and last resort cases, that an immigrant can rely on the status of a minor child. How can an Adult be dependent on minor child? They can't, the courts will look at the status of the parents. THis line of cases shows that it is what the EU parents does , that counts. It was only in Zambrano and in a way, Chen, that was last resort, as neither parent were EU's and they tried to do everything, even if outside the remit of the Treaty, ensure that the child never has to leave the Union, even if it meant giving a subjective and artificial definition on EU law. The children in Dereci case law, were irrelevant as they were never going to be deprived of their EU residency

[walrusgumble]

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.

It shows that when the Members State went on to say that they hoped that EU citizenship was to be fundamental ........ (its even in the recital of 2004/38 EC Directive) they genuinely, in 1992, were not that serious. They clearly have a difference of opinion compared to the EU Court. They did not address the wave of movement by 3rd Country nationals in the past 15 years. I told you lot before in previous threads, most EU states don't really take the significance of Article 20 and 21 that seriously. I was abused for saying that.

I would , for debate sake, point out, how toothless the Commission has being in siding with the Member States. Whether this is down to a realisation that the Courts are diluting what the words of the Treaty are actually saying or that they want to keep Germany and France happy in light of the current economic problems.

As for Ireland, it has not yet really being determined under Irish Law. Who says that all cases will loose under Shatter? There is an attitude in the Department, to quote Daniel O'Connell on the Irishness of one Duke of Wellington of Kildare, " just because you were born in a stable, it does not mean that you are a horse". That, is the reality. THe idea for the department of having to finance all of these families via social as there is no chance of getting work , does not help (look, that is not me, read the caselaw, the department actually quote unemployment figures!!!!!) Read Lobe 2003 Supreme Court as to the reasons given.


"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."

Someone has complained about me pointing out a number of things. But I am justified with statements such as this.

EU law can not and will not interfere with internal matters. No EU state, bar the Belgians (but that's a nothing country anyway) would accept this. The Internal market is not effected, free movement is actually encouraged ie move to another EU state to get your rights.

It is clear a message in dealing with some Third COuntry nationals ie Non EU's.

I do agree, the logic of the Court is arseways, but Zambrano started that. (I don't refer to the AG opinion, though while in parts ridiculous from a political point of view, was at least coherent and a worth while exercise)

Dereci absurbed, yes but the reverse discrimination boys won't care too much, but Zambrano is also absurbed as this was the only way leading to this enviable result.

"or them to at least see each other, must they split up, thus leaving the non-EU
parent the sole carer of the child."

Not necessarily, if they are genuine they will try everything to stay together, even move to another EU state via Metock. If not, they really should be more careful (as best they can) when it comes to conceiving children.



"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, "

No negative immigration history, are you sure? Overstaying after legal permission is not negative. The damning reasons provided by the RAT is not a bit negative? In case you have not noticed, its people who have no legal permission to be in the said country that heavily relies on these cases. It does not matter whether you are genuine or not, the law should not allow family matters be used to side step the integrity of the system.


"and on the other hand completely ignoring and failing to prosecute and imprison fraudsters"

Never mind imprison, but deportation, our prisons are full already.

Surely you don't mean people who have being proven to have unfounded, unbelievable asylum cases into that?

[Morrisj]

@wals i thought you were good at eu law but you proved otherwise.Its completely waste of time exchanging words with you.Refering you to para 76-96 of the ''full Judgment on Dereci''(I mentioned full judgment cos am astonished you dont know what NAG means,perharps you have not read the judgment or your link is incomplete).Mr dereci was not classified as a third country national and if he won his case even when there is a strict policy(NAG)what about the other couples?Mr dereci's minor kids was his success

[Morrisj]

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

[walrusgumble]

@wals i thought you were good at eu law but you proved otherwise.Its completely waste of time exchanging words with you.Refering you to para 76-96 of the ''full Judgment on Dereci''(I mentioned full judgment cos am astonished you dont know what NAG means,perharps you have not read the judgment or your link is incomplete).Mr dereci was not classified as a third country national and if he won his case even when there is a strict policy(NAG)what about the other couples?Mr dereci's minor kids was his success

You never thought that I was good at EU law. Or have you just realised that you were wrong all along? It is likely you are wrong again.

You do have to point out where you think that I am wrong because everybody knows, you lack credibility on this front , I say that respectively.

You would be better off just responding, I don't like what you have to say, as oppose to question somebody's competency and or understanding of the law.

NAG is not a word, so what is it? I have no doubt there are other forms used to describe this phrase. The Dereci part dealing with the Turkish laws are totally irrelevant to me and don't need to be considered. That is why they have paragraphs numbered, so you can just get straight to the important stuff.

Again, why clutch onto Dercei, your not Turkish, its not relevant to the discussion for many people here. You repeatedly stick to points that no body is talking about. EU have a special relationship with Turkey. Get over it.

What about the other applicants from the Dercei case? Stop hidding behind this person as its not relevant for many of you. No one is arguing about Turks.