User:JaniB/sandbox: Difference between revisions
wikiliking rights of establishment, lawful residence, articel 8 ECHR |
m Overlinking |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
The court ruled definitively that national rules making the [[Residency (domicile)|right of residence]] of [[Third Country National|third country national]] spouses of Union citizens under the Directive conditional on 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 third country 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> |
The court ruled definitively that national rules making the [[Residency (domicile)|right of residence]] of [[Third Country National|third country national]] spouses of Union citizens under the Directive conditional on 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 third country 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 |
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 European Union citizen working and residing in Ireland. The application was refused by decision of the Minister for Justice on 28 June 2007, on the grounds that Mr Metock did not satisfy the condition of [[Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006|prior lawful residence]] in another Member State.<ref name="Case C-127/08 html">{{cite web|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|publisher=[[EUR-Lex]]|accessdate=14 November 2009}}</ref> |
||
Metock, Ngo Ikeng and their children brought proceedings against that decision. They were joined by three other third country national applicants. Ten member states expressed an interest in the case. The court ruled in favour of the applicants on the grounds that the Directive did not allow for any preconditions involving previous lawful residence, incidentally making a brief reference to [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 8]] of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], which enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.<ref name="Case C-127/08 html"/> |
Metock, Ngo Ikeng and their children brought proceedings against that decision. They were joined by three other third country national applicants. Ten member states expressed an interest in the case. The court ruled in favour of the applicants on the grounds that the Directive did not allow for any preconditions involving previous lawful residence, incidentally making a brief reference to [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 8]] of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], which enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.<ref name="Case C-127/08 html"/> |
||
Revision as of 11:09, 14 November 2012
| Metock | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Submitted March 25 2008 Decided July 25 2008 | |
| Full case name | 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 |
| Case | C-127/08 ECR I-6241 |
| CelexID | 62008CA0127 |
| Nationality of parties | 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 |
| Legislation affecting | |
| Directive 2004/38 | |
| Keywords | |
| Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State | |
Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2008) C-127/08 (known as the "Metock case") was a groundbreaking European Court of Justice case of major political significance, especially in Ireland and Denmark. It dealt with the scope and applicability of Directive 2004/38, which is designed to secure the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State.[a]
The court ruled definitively that national rules making the right of residence of third country national spouses of Union citizens under the Directive conditional on 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 third country national entered the host Member State.[Cases 1]
Blaise Baheten Metock, a national of Cameroon, arrived in Ireland on 23 June 2006 and applied for asylum. His application was definitively refused on 28 February 2007. Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, born a national of Cameroon, acquired 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 residence card as the spouse of a European Union citizen working and residing in Ireland. The application was refused by decision of the Minister for Justice on 28 June 2007, on the grounds that Mr Metock did not satisfy the condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State.[1]
Metock, Ngo Ikeng and their children brought proceedings against that decision. They were joined by three other third country national applicants. Ten member states expressed an interest in the case. The court ruled in favour of the applicants on the grounds that the Directive did not allow for any preconditions involving previous lawful residence, incidentally making a brief reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.[1]
The decision effectively overruled an earlier case Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich (2003) 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 Great Britain 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 rights of establishment.[Cases 2]
Facts
Judgment
Commentary
Implications for Member States
Denmark
United Kingdom
See also
Notes
- ^ The directive indicates it has EEA relevance, meaning that its provisions also apply to Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein.
Cases
- ^ "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)". EUR-Lex. Retrieved 13 November 2012.
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.
- ^ "Case C-109/01 (Akrich): Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 (reference for a preliminary ruling: Immigration Appeal Tribunal - United Kingdom)". EUR-Lex. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
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 ...
References
- ^ a b "Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform". EUR-Lex. Retrieved 14 November 2009.
External links
- Guidelines on free movement and residence rights of EU citizens and their families
- European Union (Free Movement of Person) Regulations (S.I. 226 of 2006)
- European Union (Free Movement of Person) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I. 656 of 2006)
- European Union (Free Movement of Person) (Amendment) Regulations (S.I. 310 of 2008)