User:JaniB/sandbox

Metock
Metock
	European Court of Justice
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

This is the user sandbox of JaniB. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

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 (ECJ) 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]

A non-EU national is a national of a country not in the European Union (EU). The court ruled definitively that national rules making the right of residence of non-EU national spouses of Union citizens under Directive 2004/38 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 non-EU 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 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 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,^[1] incidentally making a brief reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.^[2]

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 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 rights of establishment.^{[Cases 2]}

Facts

Metock was a Cameroonian national married to a British national working in Ireland. Metock had sought and been refused 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 Nigerian national, arrived in Ireland in 2005, applied for and was refused asylum, but before the refusal married a German national working in Ireland. Igboanusi, a Nigerian national, applied for asylum in Ireland, which was refused in 2005. He married a Polish national working in Ireland in 2006, and was deported to Nigeria in December 2007.

All four men had their applications for residence cards refused on the grounds that either they did not satisfy a condition of prior lawful residence or that they were staying illegally in Ireland at the time of their marriage. Together with their spouses they brought proceedings against the decision.^[3]

The High Court of Ireland made a request for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The High Court affirmed that none of the marriages were marriages of convenience. In essence the High Court asked:^[4]

Does Directive 2004/38 permit a Member State to maintain a prior lawful residence requirement, as did Irish legislation?
Does Article 3(1) of the Directive 2004/38 include within its scope of application a non-EU national, i.e. a national of a country not in the European Union (EU), who is a spouse of a 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.^[b]

Judgment

Commentary

Implications for Member States

Denmark

Denmark's Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) opt-out provided Denmark with the freedom to pursue its own relatively strict policies regarding asylum and family reunification, in particular its implementation of the controversial 24 year rule designed to discourage forced marriages that has nevertheless attracted criticism on human rights grounds. However Metock depends on Directive 2004/38, which is not part of EU cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs, and Denmark is thus obliged to implement Metock.

United Kingdom

Notes

^ Directive 2004/38 indicates it has 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).
^ It might be, for example, that Directive 2004/38 applied to spouses who were married before entering the Member State but not to those who married after entering the Member State.

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 ...

Commentaries

References

Footnotes

^ Metock, [49].
^ Metock, [79].
^ Metock, [18 -37].
^ Metock, [46 -47].

Bibliography

"Case C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform". EUR-Lex. Archived from the original on 7 August 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2009.

External links

[1] Directive 2004/38 indicates it has 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).

[8] It might be, for example, that Directive 2004/38 applied to spouses who were married before entering the Member State but not to those who married after entering the Member State.

[C-127/08-2] "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.

[C-109/01-5] "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 ...

[FOOTNOTEMetock[49]-3] Metock, [49].

[FOOTNOTEMetock[79]-4] Metock, [79].

[FOOTNOTEMetock[18_-37]-6] Metock, [18 -37].

[FOOTNOTEMetock[46_-47]-7] Metock, [46 -47].

[a]

[Cases 1]

[1]

[2]

[Cases 2]

[3]

[4]

[b]