Jump to content

User:JaniB/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m MBisanz moved page User:FrontBottomFracas/sandbox to User:JaniB/sandbox: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "FrontBottomFracas" to "JaniB"
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
5,435,560 edits
Alter: isbn. Removed parameters. Upgrade ISBN10 to ISBN13. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | #UCB_webform 295/401
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User sandbox}}
{{User sandbox}}
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{italic title|force=true}}

<!-- Working copy transferred to [[User:1d6507f9/sandbox]]. -->

<!-- Expansion of existing article in progress. Commenced 12/11/2012, expected completion by 23/11/2012. -->
<!-- TODO NEXT Judgment --->

{{Infobox European case
{{Infobox European case
|short_name=Metock
|short_name=P. v. S.
|court=ECJ
|court=ECJ
|SubmitDate=March 25
|SubmitDate= 11 January
|SubmitYear=2008
|SubmitYear= 1994
|DecideDate=July 25
|DecideDate= 30 April
|DecideYear=2008
|DecideYear= 1996
|FullName= P v S and Cornwall County Council
|FullName=Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
|CelexID=62008CA0127
|CelexID= 61994CJ0013
|CaseNumber=C-127/08 ECR I-6241
|CaseNumber= C-13/94 ECR I-2143
|Chamber=
|Chamber=
|Nationality=
|Nationality=Family members who are nationals of non-member countries — Nationals of non-member countries who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses of Union citizens
|Procedural=
|Procedural=
|JudgeRapporteur=
|JudgeRapporteur=
Line 24: Line 19:
|AdvocateGeneral=
|AdvocateGeneral=
|InstrumentsCited=
|InstrumentsCited=
|LegislationAffecting=[[Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely|Directive 2004/38]]
|LegislationAffecting=
|Keywords=Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State
|Keywords= Equal treatment for men and women - Dismissal of a transsexual.
}}
}}


''''' P v S and Cornwall County Council''''' (2008) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0013:EN:NOT C-13/94] (short name '''''P. v. S.''''') was a [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ) case.
'''''Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform''''' (2008) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CA0127:EN:NOT C-127/08] (known as the "'''''Metock'' case'''") was a groundbreaking [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ) case of major political significance, especially in [[Ireland]] and [[Denmark]]. It dealt with the scope and applicability of [[Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely|Directive 2004/38]], which is designed to secure the right of [[Citizenship of the European Union|Union citizens]] and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a [[Member state of the European Union|Member State]].{{efn|[[Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely|Directive 2004/38]] indicates it has [[European Economic Area|European Economic Area]] (EEA) relevance, meaning that its provisions also apply to [[Iceland]], [[Norway]], and [[Liechtenstein]]. [[Switzerland]] is not in the EEA, but has a similar agreement with the [[European Union]] (EU).}}


==Background==
A [[Third Country National|non-EU national]] is a national of a country not in the [[European Union]] (EU). The court ruled definitively that [[Legislation|national rules]] making the [[Residency (domicile)|right of residence]] of non-EU national spouses of Union citizens under Directive 2004/38 conditional on [[Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006|prior lawful residence]] in another Member State were unlawful. It also ruled against national restrictions on when and where their marriage took place and how the non-EU national entered the host Member State.<ref name="C-127/08" group="Cases">{{cite web|title=Case C-127/08 (''Metock''): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland)|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CA0127:EN:NOT|publisher=[[EUR-Lex]]|accessdate=13 November 2012|quote=''1. Directive 2004/38/EC ... precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive. 2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State.''}}</ref>

Blaise Baheten Metock, a national of [[Cameroon]], arrived in Ireland on 23 June 2006 and applied for [[Right of asylum|asylum]]. His application was definitively refused on 28 February 2007. Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, born a national of Cameroon, acquired [[British nationality law|United Kingdom nationality]]. She had resided and worked in Ireland since late 2006. Metock and Ngo Ikeng met in Cameroon in 1994 and had been in a relationship since then. They had two children together, one born in 1998 and the other in 2006. They were married in Ireland on 12 October 2006. On 6 November 2006, Metock applied in Ireland for a [[Stamp 4|residence card]] as the spouse of a Union citizen working and residing in Ireland. The application was refused by decision of the [[Minister for Justice and Equality|Minister for Justice]] on 28 June 2007, on the grounds that Metock did not satisfy the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State.

Metock, Ngo Ikeng and their children brought proceedings against that decision. They were joined by three other non-EU national applicants. Ten member states expressed an interest in the case. The court ruled in favour of the applicants on the grounds in the first place that no provision of Directive 2004/38 makes its application dependent upon previous lawful residence,{{sfn|Metock|loc=[49]}} incidentally making a brief reference to [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 8]] of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] that enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.{{sfn|Metock|loc=[79]}}

The decision effectively overruled an earlier case ''Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich'' (2003) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0109:EN:NOT C-109/01] that the Irish government had relied on. The ''Akrich'' case involved an individual who had entered the UK without authorization, and was twice deported from the United Kingdom. The individual came into the country a third time without authorization and married a British citizen. He was soon thereafter deported to Dublin, where his wife was working, where he remained for six months. Following this he attempted to return to the United Kingdom where his wife had secured employment. In ''Akrich'', in direct contrast to the later ''Metock'' case, the ECJ held that the initial unauthorized entrance could be used by national authorities in order to prevent someone from claiming European [[internal Market#Freedom of establishment|rights of establishment]].<ref name="C-109/01" group="Cases">{{cite web|title=Case C-109/01 (''Akrich''): Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 (reference for a preliminary ruling: Immigration Appeal Tribunal - United Kingdom)|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0109:EN:NOT|publisher=[[EUR-Lex]]|accessdate=14 November 2012|quote=''1. In order to be able to benefit in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 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 moves to another Member State to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated ...''}}</ref>


==Facts==
==Facts==
Metock was a [[Cameroon|Cameroonian]] national married to a [[British nationality law|British national]] working in [[Ireland]]. Metock had sought and been refused [[Right of asylum|asylum]] in Ireland. He and his wife had formed a family in Cameroon prior to Metock’s arrival in Ireland and they had two children, one born before Metock’s arrival in Ireland and the other born the same year as his arrival. Ikogho, a national of a non-member country, arrived in Ireland in 2004, applied for and was refused asylum, and then married a British citizen working in Ireland since 1996. Chinedu, a [[Nigeria|Nigerian]] national, arrived in Ireland in 2005, applied for and was refused asylum, but before the refusal married a [[German nationality law|German national]] working in Ireland. Igboanusi, a Nigerian national, applied for asylum in Ireland, which was refused in 2005. He married a [[Polish nationality law|Polish national]] working in Ireland in 2006, and was deported to Nigeria in December 2007.


==Advocate General's opinion==
All four men had their applications for [[Stamp 4|residence cards]] refused on the grounds that either they did not satisfy a condition of [[Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006|prior lawful residence]] or that they were [[Illegal immigration|staying illegally]] in Ireland at the time of their marriage. Together with their spouses they brought proceedings against the decision.{{sfn|Metock|loc=[18 -37]}}

The [[High Court (Ireland)|High Court of Ireland]] made a request for a [[Preliminary ruling|preliminary ruling]] to the [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ). The High Court affirmed that none of the marriages were [[Marriages of convenience|marriages of convenience]]. In essence the High Court asked:{{sfn|Metock|loc=[46 -47]}}

# Does [[Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely|Directive 2004/38]] permit a [[Member state of the European Union|Member State]] to maintain a prior lawful residence requirement, as did [[Law of the Republic of Ireland|Irish legislation]]?
# Does Article 3(1) of the Directive 2004/38 include within its scope of application a [[Third country national|non-EU national]], i.e. a national of a country not in the [[European Union]] (EU), who is a spouse of a [[Citizenship of the European Union|Union citizen]] who resides in the host Member State, and then resides in the host Member State with the Union citizen as his/her spouse irrespective of when or where their marriage took place or how the non-EU national entered the host Member State?
# If the answer to 2 was negative, whether Article 3(1) includes non-EU nationals who entered the host Member State independently of their spouse and subsequently married them there.{{efn|It might be, for example, that [[Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely|Directive 2004/38]] applied to spouses who were married before entering the [[Member state of the European Union|Member State]] but not to those who married after entering the Member State.}}


==Judgment==
==Judgment==


==Commentary==
==Commentary==

==Implications for Member States==

===Denmark===
[[Denmark|Denmark's]] Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) [[Opt-outs in the European Union|opt-out]] provided Denmark with the freedom to pursue its own relatively strict policies regarding asylum and [[Family reunification|family reunification]], in particular its implementation of the controversial [[24 year rule]] designed to discourage [[Forced marriage|forced marriages]] that has nevertheless attracted criticism on [[human rights]] grounds. However ''Metock'' depends on Directive 2004/38, which is not part of [[Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters|EU cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs]], and Denmark is thus obliged to implement ''Metock''.

===United Kingdom===


==See also==
==See also==
* [[Transsexualism]]
* [[Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely]]
* [[Legal aspects of transsexualism]]
* [[Employment Equality Framework Directive]]
* [[Equal Treatment Directive]]


== Notes ==
== Notes ==
Line 68: Line 46:
==Cases==
==Cases==
{{Reflist|group="Cases"}}
{{Reflist|group="Cases"}}

==Commentaries==
{{Reflist|group="Commentaries"}}


==References==
==References==
Line 77: Line 52:
{{reflist|30em}}
{{reflist|30em}}


===Bibliography===
===Cases===
<!-- Problems with multiple columns in sandbox --->
{{refbegin}}
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite web
* {{cite web
| title= P v S and Cornwall County Council <NOWIKI>[1996]</NOWIKI> ECR I-2143 (C-13/94)
| title= Case C-127/08 ''Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform''
| url= http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0127:EN:HTML
| url= http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0013:EN:HTML
| publisher= [[EUR-Lex]]
| publisher= [[EUR-Lex]]
| ref = {{sfnRef|Metock}}
| ref = {{sfnRef|P. v. S. 2003}}
| accessdate= 14 November 2009
| accessdate= 3 December 2012
| archivedate = 7 August 2012
| archivedate = 3 December 2012
| archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6CDRyjN0f
| archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/6CduO12Mr
}}
{{refend}}

===Opinions===
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite web
| title= Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 14 December 1995 Case C-13/94 (''P. v. S.'')
| author=
| url= http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61994CC0013:EN:HTML
| publisher= [[EUR-Lex]]
| ref = {{sfnRef|Tesauro 1995}}
| accessdate= 3 December 2012
| archivedate = 3 December 2012
| archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/6CdwArQRu
}}
{{refend}}

===Bibliography===
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal
| title = Case Law: P. v. S.
| journal = [[Columbia Journal of European Law|The Columbia Journal of European Law]]
| first = Eva
| last = Brems
| pages = 339
| volume = 2
| year = 1996
| issn = 1076-6715
| url = http://www.cjel.net/print/2_2-brems/
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6Cdv1HgOS
| archivedate = 3 December 2012
| accessdate = 3 December 2012
}}
* {{cite book
| last1 = Chalmers
| first1 = Damian
| last2 = Davies
| first2 = Gareth
| last3 = Monti
| first3 = Giorgio
| year = 2011
| title = European Union Law
| publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
| edition = 2nd
| location = UK
| isbn = 978-0521121514
| pages = {{Google books|GQjXnaies6QC|pp. 538, 548|page=548}}
| no-pp = y
| ref = {{sfnRef|Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011}}
}}
* {{cite web
| title= ERT Case Summary: P v. S and Cornwall County Council
| url= http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20P%20v%20S.pdf
| publisher= [http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ The Equal Rights Trust]
| ref = {{sfnRef|ERT Case Summary 1996}}
| accessdate= 3 December 2012
| archivedate = 3 December 2012
| archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/6CeT1CZDR
}}
* {{cite book
| last1 = Harlow
| first1 = Carol
| last2 = Rawlings
| first2 = Richard
| year = 1992
| title = Pressure Through Law
| publisher = [[Routledge]]
| location = UK
| isbn = 0415015499
| pages = {{Google books|dRhunvkHpOEC|pp. 277 ff.|page=277}}
| no-pp = y
| ref = {{sfnRef|Harlow, Rawlings 1992}}
}}
}}
{{refend}}
{{refend}}


==External links==
==External links==
*[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-311_en.htm?locale=en Guidelines on free movement and residence rights of EU citizens and their families]
*[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0226.html European Union (Free Movement of Person) Regulations (S.I. 226 of 2006)]
*[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0656.html European Union (Free Movement of Person) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I. 656 of 2006)]
*[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0310.html European Union (Free Movement of Person) (Amendment) Regulations (S.I. 310 of 2008)]




[[Category:European Union case law]]
[[Category:Republic of Ireland case law]]


[[:Category:European Union case law]]
[[da:Metock-sagen]]
[[:Category:Gender]]
[[:Category:Transgender]]
[[:Category:Transgender law]]

Latest revision as of 15:43, 17 May 2021

P. v. S.
European Court of Justice
Submitted 11 January 1994
Decided 30 April 1996
Full case nameP v S and Cornwall County Council
CaseC-13/94 ECR I-2143
CelexID61994CJ0013
Keywords
Equal treatment for men and women - Dismissal of a transsexual.

P v S and Cornwall County Council (2008) C-13/94 (short name P. v. S.) was a European Court of Justice (ECJ) case.

Background

[edit]

Facts

[edit]

Advocate General's opinion

[edit]

Judgment

[edit]

Commentary

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Cases

[edit]

References

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

Cases

[edit]
  • "P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR I-2143 (C-13/94)". EUR-Lex. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012. {{cite web}}: NOWIKI stripmarker in |title= at position 35 (help)

Opinions

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]

Category:European Union case law Category:Gender Category:Transgender Category:Transgender law

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:JaniB/sandbox&oldid=1023652644"