691:. Regarding the issue of reverse discrimination, Austria has explicitly legislated that their nationals must have exercised their right of free movement to gain European Union family reunification rights. Italy, however, decided to avoid reverse discrimination by granting their nationals the same rights of family reunification as their non-national Union citizens. Attention has switched in a number of member states to preventing abuse of European Union rules on residence rights. These include Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden. Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands have called for amendments to be made to the Citizenship Directive 2004/38. The Netherlands has announced its intention to open negotiations at the European level to put an end to abuses of the so-called "Europe route" where a national migrates to another member state for a period of time so as to exercise his right of free movement and thus gain European Union rights of family reunification on his return, circumventing national restrictions. A small but growing number of member state nationals, especially from Denmark and the Netherlands, indulge in such migration to the concern of their national authorities. On 5 October 2012, the
1007:
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 ... 3. Where the marriage between a national of a Member State and a national of a non-Member State is genuine, the fact that the spouses installed themselves in another Member State in order, on their return to the Member State of which the former is a national, to obtain the benefit of rights conferred by
Community law is not relevant to an assessment of their legal situation by the competent authorities of the latter State.
1146:
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.
86:
576:
the Court replied that it only applied to non-EU national family members of Union citizens who had exercised their right of free movement. Moreover, member states may still refuse entry and residence in accord with
Articles 27 and 35 of the Citizenship Directive 2004/38, dealing respectively with personal breaches of public policy, public health or public security and abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
33:
227:(EU) for the first time. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 imposes no condition that family members can only join on first entry if they are already resident within the European Union. Nevertheless, the Irish legislation implementing the directive required the family member to demonstrate lawful residence within the European Union prior to first entry.
687:. Ireland reacted swiftly, implementing the judgment just four working days after receiving it and undertaking to apply it retrospectively. Austria, Cyprus, Czech republic and Slovakia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania and the United Kingdom are amongst other member states that amended their legislation or policy as a result of
1989:
568:. Moreover, it would lead to the paradoxical outcome that non-EU nationals who are long-term residents would be able to bring in their family members not lawfully resident in a member state under the Family Reunification Directive 2003/86 whereas a Union citizen in a member state whose nationality he does not possess might not.
612:
personal breaches of public policy, public health or public security and abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Member states are entitled to impose penalties, such as a fine, for other breaches so long as they are proportionate and do not interfere with freedom of movement and residence, as affirmed in
270:. 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
1145:
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
611:
On the issue of the circumstances of the family member's entry, the Court observed that from the moment the family member derives their right of residence, a member state may only restrict that right in compliance with
Articles 27 and 35 of the Citizenship Directive 2004/38, dealing respectively with
519:
Regarding the issue of reverse discrimination arising from migrant citizens receiving more rights to family reunification than host member state nationals who have not exercised their right to free movement by taking up residence in another member state, the Court reiterated that settled case-law had
1006:
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
911:
affirms " ...Treaty rules governing freedom of movement for persons and the measures adopted to implement them cannot be applied to activities which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by
Community law and which are confined in all relevant respects within a single member
575:
Regarding the submission by the Irish government and several member states that this interpretation of the
Citizenship Directive 2004/38 would undermine the ability of member states to control immigration and lead to a great increase in the number of persons able to benefit from rights of residence,
231:
clarified that it was not lawful to maintain such a requirement. A consequence was that in some member states, such as
Denmark, migrant citizens possessed more rights to family reunification than their own nationals who had not exercised their right to free movement by taking up residence in another
860:
affirms ".. the right of entry into the territory of a Member State granted to a third‑country national who is the spouse of a national of a Member State derives from the family relationship alone." In this case the Court ruled that Spain had failed to implement a number of directives predating the
595:
On the second question regarding the scope of the
Citizenship Directive 2004/38, the Court noted in the first place that the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 aims to facilitate the exercise of the right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of member states and in particular
559:
between member states and the
European Community. Community legislature was competent to enact the necessary measures to bring about freedom of movement for Union citizens. Union citizens would be discouraged from exercising their right of free movement if they could not be accompanied or joined by
507:
Breaches of immigration policy not involving the fundamental interests of society or abuse of rights and fraud, such as marriages of convenience, may be penalised only proportionally, such as by imposing a fine, and not in a way that interferes with the family member's right to freedom of movement
222:
It is a logical consequence of the right to free movement that migrant citizens can move their family from one member state to another. Not to allow this would deter them from moving and thus impede their right to free movement. But it is not immediately clear that migrant citizens should have the
607:
On the issue of whether a family member who has entered the host member state before becoming a family member of a Union citizen can be said to accompany or join him, the Court noted that refusing the right of entry or residence in that circumstance would be equally likely to discourage the Union
579:
The same governments had also submitted that this interpretation of the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 would lead to unjustified reverse discrimination, in so far as nationals of the host member states who had never exercised their right of freedom of movement would not derive the same rights. The
528:
On the first question regarding the condition of prior lawful residence in another member state, the Court noted in the first place that no provision of the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 makes its application conditional on prior residence in a member state. Indeed, some of its provisions suggest
563:
The Court rejected the argument put forward by the Irish government and several member states that member states retained exclusive competence to regulate first entry. This would lead to variation of treatment across the Community incompatible with the objective of an internal market set out in
536:
Accordingly, the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as granting rights of entry and residence to non-EU national family members of EU citizens not possessing the nationality of their host member state without distinguishing whether there had been prior lawful residence in another
281:
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 the
661:
whereby a national of a member state circumvents national restrictions on family reunification by taking up residence in another member state, thus exercising his right of free movement and subsequently relying on his right to family reunification under the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 on his
603:
The directive provides family members of Union citizens the right of entry and residence without any provision requiring the Union citizen already to have founded the family when he moved to his host member state. Not to allow this right would discourage him from continuing to reside there and
669:
The case has unintentionally created a vastly foreseeable and predicted consequences in member states' ability to control their borders. The case has undeniably aided the efforts of non-EU nationals seeking to circumvent ordinary immigration procedures by marrying EU nationals, with the Irish
1997:
1098:
A national of a non-member country married to a worker having the nationality of a member state cannot rely on the right conferred by Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community when that worker has never
948:
affirms "Community law does not prevent the member states from prescribing, for breaches of national provisions concerning the control of aliens, any appropriate sanctions necessary ... provided that those sanctions are proportionate." In this case the Court ruled that the right of entry and
604:
encourage him to leave to be able to lead a family life in another member state or in a non-member country. The Court ruled therefore that the right applied regardless of whether the Union citizen had founded his family before or after establishing himself in the host member state.
429:
The case was granted a rare accelerated hearing given the exceptional urgency of the circumstances with regard to both the pressure on the Irish Minister of Justice and the human rights of the applicants in regard to the right to respect for private and family life as enshrined in
571:
Consequently, the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 confers rights of entry and residence to non-EU national family members of EU citizens not possessing the nationality of their host member state regardless of whether there had been prior lawful residence in another member state.
596:
recital 5 of its preamble provides that right, if it is to be exercised under objective conditions of dignity, should also be extended to family members irrespective of their nationality. The provisions of the directive must not be interpreted restrictively, as affirmed in
378:
in Ireland at the time of their marriage. All but Metock had met their spouse after arriving in Ireland and all four were married in Ireland. Together with their spouses (and in the case of Metock their children) they brought proceedings against the decision.
111:
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
516:(EC) and not individual member states were competent to regulate the right of entry into the European Union of non-EU family members of Union citizens who have exercised their right of free movement. Previously case-law had been unclear.
421:
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
342:
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
767:
In these circumstances, does a delay between the national's return to his member state and the entry of a non-EU national who is a family member into the member state potentially mean that the family member's rights have
497:
The right of family members to join European Union citizens is regulated only by the Citizenship Directive 2004/38. A member state may not impose any additional regulations such as previous lawful residence in a member
310:. 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
305:
case involved an individual who had entered the UK without authorisation, and was twice deported from the United Kingdom. The individual came into the country a third time without authorisation and married a
533:
while Article 10(2) is an exhaustive list of documents that may need presenting, which nevertheless does not include any documents demonstrating prior lawful residence in another member state.
608:
citizen from remaining. To insist on a literal interpretation of 'join' or 'accompany' would be restrictive and equivalent to limiting the rights of entry and residence of the family member.
282:
Citizenship Directive 2004/38 makes its application dependent upon previous lawful residence, and secondly that European Community (and not individual member states) legislature had the
255:
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.
425:
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.
286:
to regulate the first entry to the European Union of family members of a Union citizen who has exercised his right to free movement, and incidentally making a brief reference to
650:, which confirmed that returning migrants continue to enjoy the family reunification rights they enjoyed while residing in another member state. This has led to the so-called
680:
years, 2015 to 2017, were bogus, motivated not by love, but by immigration status. The Irish Police cited that 400 sham marriages had been found to have occurred since 2015.
758:
when a national of a member state returns after receiving services in another member state in the sense of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
862:
840:
803:
778:
403:
149:
139:
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
2194:
1769:
2257:
932:
affirms ".. According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, secondary Community legislation on movement and residence cannot be interpreted restrictively."
1937:
847:
but not to those who married after entering the member state, granting the same right of family reunification enjoyed by long-term residents but not extending it.
251:
of non-EU national spouses of Union citizens resident in a member state but not possessing its nationality under the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 conditional on
875:
565:
1913:
1889:
1865:
1793:
1745:
371:
252:
1841:
1817:
783:
727:
584:. Moreover, member states are parties to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrining the right to respect for private and family life.
540:
This interpretation was supported by the Court's earlier case-law adopted before the Citizenship Directive 2004/38. It was true that the Court had held in
530:
431:
287:
2041:
587:
Finally regarding the first question, the Court ruled that it was not lawful to maintain a condition of prior lawful residence in another member state.
1961:
963:
580:
Court replied that it was already established case-law that the alleged discrimination fell outside the scope of European Community law, citing
651:
622:
Finally regarding the second question, the Court ruled that all the circumstances fell within the scope of the Citizenship Directive 2004/38.
2121:
504:
It does not matter if the family member had entered the European Union illegally or was living there illegally at the time of their marriage.
520:
established the so-called "wholly internal rule" and that the alleged discrimination thus fell outside the scope of European Community law.
544:
that prior lawful residence in another member state was a requirement but that conclusion must be reconsidered as it was incompatible with
318:
case, the ECJ held that the initial unauthorised entrance could be used by national authorities to prevent someone from claiming European
1082:) : Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 1997 (reference for a preliminary ruling: Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm – Germany.)"
878:
provides for an internal market characterised by the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.
529:
that it is applicable to family members not already lawfully resident in another member state. Thus Article 5(2) allows entry without a
2142:
1661:
417:
Does Article 3(1) of the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 include within its scope of application a non-EU national who is a spouse of a
50:
895:
for at least five years. They enjoy favourable rights under the Long-term Residents Directive 2003/109. These include the right to
2195:"Immigration: the Metock case and its implications for UK rules on family members of EEA citizens – Commons Library Standard Note"
899:, which they may apply for before they have qualified for long-term residence once they have reasonable prospects of attaining it.
2169:
990:): Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 (reference for a preliminary ruling: Immigration Appeal Tribunal – United Kingdom)"
266:. His application was definitively refused on 28 February 2007. Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, born a national of Cameroon, acquired
746:
referred four questions for a preliminary ruling from the Court related to the so-called "Europe route". In essence these were:
54:
1993:
482:
42:
2262:
1129:): Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland)"
278:
on 28 June 2007, on the grounds that Metock did not satisfy the condition of prior lawful residence in another member state.
359:
working in Ireland. Igboanusi, a Nigerian national, applied for asylum in Ireland, which was refused in 2005. He married a
743:
692:
435:
291:
2110:
1945:
844:
439:
407:
212:
166:
666:
the Court ruled that taking up residence in another member state expressly to gain community rights is not an abuse.
418:
208:
200:
162:
2049:
1973:
1897:
1873:
1825:
1801:
1777:
1753:
1613:
1602:
1591:
1921:
1849:
1124:
1077:
985:
619:
On the question of where the marriage took place, the Court observed that the directive contains no requirement.
274:
as the spouse of a Union citizen working and residing in Ireland. The application was refused by decision of the
950:
707:
411:
275:
2042:"Case Law: Case C-127/08, Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform"
630:
There was no need to answer the third question as the second question had been answered in the affirmative.
355:
national, arrived in Ireland in 2005, applied for and was refused asylum, but before the refusal married a
204:
501:
It does not matter that the family member met and married their partner after entering the European Union.
319:
17:
129:
2087:
912:
state". In this case, however, the Court found the situation not to be wholly internal. See also the
391:
188:
90:
2227:
710:
provided Denmark with the freedom to pursue its own relatively strict policies regarding asylum and
2198:
2013:
1689:
395:
2125:
662:
return. A number of member states have claimed this amounts to an abuse of free movement, but in
348:
335:
307:
267:
695:
requested a preliminary ruling from the Court on four questions relating to the "Europe route".
888:
807:
360:
356:
344:
236:
2096:
2092:
2149:
2177:
2124:. The European network on free movement of workers within the European Union. Archived from
896:
711:
383:
248:
764:
If so, does this still apply when the residence was intermittent, for example at weekends?
8:
375:
223:
right to bring their family into a member state when the family members are entering the
215:, consolidating previous Directives dealing with the right to move and reside within the
936:
clarified that returning migrants could continue to rely on their European Union rights.
2202:
513:
387:
216:
192:
180:
2242:
2237:
2232:
656:
2173:
2106:
2058:
1938:"Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004"
1671:
1640:
508:
and residence, and this applies from the moment the family member derives his rights.
347:, arrived in Ireland in 2004, applied for and was refused asylum, and then married a
2243:
European Union (Free Movement of Person) (Amendment) Regulations (S.I. 310 of 2008)
917:
2228:
Guidelines on free movement and residence rights of EU citizens and their families
1666:
719:
560:
their family, and consequently the Community was competent to rule on the issue.
339:
263:
1962:"Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 28 June 2007 Case C-212/06 (
2238:
European Union (Free Movement of Person) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I. 656 of 2006)
827:
450:
224:
196:
2014:"Uitspraak LJN BX9567, Raad van State, 201011889/1/T1/V4 en 201108529/1/T1/V4"
2251:
2062:
1694:
1675:
913:
819:
443:
105:
1623:
1621:
555:
In the second place this interpretation was consistent with the division of
2102:
1990:"Order of the President of the Court 17 April 2008 (Accelerated procedure)"
1060:
1058:
892:
761:
If so, is a minimum period of residence required in the other member state?
722:
that has nevertheless attracted criticism on human rights grounds. However
715:
556:
283:
2066:
363:
working in Ireland in 2006, and was deported to Nigeria in December 2007.
1618:
1525:
1477:
1429:
1381:
823:
470:
244:
211:
and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a
165:
and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a
1645:
1055:
1043:
2233:
European Union (Free Movement of Person) Regulations (S.I. 226 of 2006)
1914:"Uecker and Jacquet [1997] ECR I-3171 (C-94/96 & C-65/96))"
1441:
1345:
670:
authorities stating that around half of the marriages in Ireland in a 2
370:
refused on the grounds that either they did not satisfy a condition of
1282:
207:(TFEU) and the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 elaborates the right of
1690:"Over 400 sham marriages halted by gardaí following 2015 crackdown"
1258:
1246:
726:
depends on the Citizenship Directive 2004/38, which is not part of
331:
259:
1537:
1513:
1501:
1489:
1453:
1417:
1393:
1369:
1357:
1321:
1195:
1969:
1941:
1917:
1893:
1869:
1845:
1821:
1797:
1773:
1749:
1152:
1132:
1085:
993:
811:
750:
Should the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 apply analogously as in
703:
478:
474:
454:
367:
352:
294:
that enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.
271:
184:
85:
1702:
1573:
1099:
exercised the right to freedom of movement within the Community.
1070:
953:
and a failure to comply with its formalities does not remove it.
1561:
1549:
1465:
1405:
1333:
1222:
1183:
815:
462:
458:
394:(ECJ). The High Court affirmed that none of the marriages were
1719:
1717:
466:
301:(2003) C-109/01 that the Irish government had relied on. The
843:
might apply to spouses who were married before entering the
1714:
1311:
1309:
1031:
810:(EEA) relevance, meaning that its provisions also apply to
779:
Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely
299:
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich
2082:
Chalmers, Damian; Davies, Gareth; Monti, Giorgio (2011).
1818:"Flemish Insurance [2008] ECR I-1683 (C-212/06))"
1770:"Commission v Spain [2005] ECR I-2911 (C-157/03)"
1270:
449:
Ten member states besides Ireland were heard. These were
410:
to maintain a prior lawful residence requirement, as did
239:
is a national of a country not in the European Union. In
2081:
2017:
1627:
1531:
1483:
1435:
1387:
1351:
1306:
1294:
1212:
1210:
1064:
1049:
826:
is not in the EEA, but has a similar agreement with the
714:, in particular its implementation of the controversial
1105:
1019:
338:
working in Ireland. Metock had sought and been refused
176:
Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
1207:
1173:
1171:
1169:
1167:
262:, arrived in Ireland on 23 June 2006 and applied for
1234:
784:
Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen
297:
The decision effectively over-ruled an earlier case
1912:
1768:
1117:
493:The judgment established several important points:
1816:
1164:
438:. The case was thus determined after hearing the
2249:
2170:"Freedom of Movement in the EU: The Metock Case"
2119:
1936:
1708:
1037:
2258:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
2012:
1723:
964:Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
876:Treaty on the functioning of the European Union
566:Treaty on the functioning of the European Union
205:Treaty on the functioning of the European Union
1842:"Metock [2008] ECR I-6241 (C-127/08)"
1746:"Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607 (C-109/01)"
1662:"How Irish sham marriage scam was dismantled"
1890:"Singh [1992] ECR I-4265 (C-370/90)"
1794:"Eind [2004] ECR I-10719 (C-291/05)"
1641:"Large number of 'sham marriages' uncovered"
1866:"MRAX [2002] ECR I-5719 (C-459/99)"
980:
978:
966:provides for the free movement of services.
730:, and Denmark is thus obliged to implement
728:EU co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs
1960:
1447:
351:working in Ireland since 1996. Chinedu, a
2167:
1216:
975:
481:and the United Kingdom. In addition the
374:or in the case of Ikogho that they were
366:All four men had their applications for
2039:
1840:
1744:
1579:
1567:
1555:
1543:
1519:
1507:
1495:
1471:
1459:
1423:
1411:
1399:
1375:
1363:
1339:
1327:
1315:
1300:
1276:
1264:
1252:
1228:
1201:
1189:
1158:
1111:
1025:
406:("the Citizenship Directive") permit a
14:
2250:
2192:
1988:
1888:
1288:
1240:
483:Commission of the European Communities
2140:
1864:
1792:
1659:
1177:
258:Blaise Baheten Metock, a national of
203:was established by Article 20 of the
2050:The Columbia Journal of European Law
55:move details into the article's body
26:
2148:. Monckton Chambers. Archived from
2016:(in Dutch). jure.nl. Archived from
1078:"Joined cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 (
744:Council of State of the Netherlands
693:Council of State of the Netherlands
683:All member states have implemented
436:European Convention on Human Rights
398:. In essence the High Court asked:
292:European Convention on Human Rights
24:
314:, in direct contrast to the later
243:the Court ruled definitively that
25:
2274:
2221:
2143:"CASE C-127/08 METOCK and Others"
442:M. Poiares Maduro but without an
201:Citizenship of the European Union
183:case, significant in Ireland and
1660:Lally, Conor (25 January 2017).
84:
31:
1682:
1653:
1633:
1607:
1596:
1585:
956:
939:
923:
902:
881:
868:
850:
833:
706:Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
633:
891:who has resided lawfully in a
796:
737:
512:The judgment settled that the
13:
1:
2122:"Thematic report 2010 – 2011"
2120:Fernhout, Roel; Wever, Ries.
1733:
949:residence stem directly from
839:For example, the Citizenship
2263:Republic of Ireland case law
1628:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1532:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1484:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1436:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1388:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1352:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1065:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
1050:Chalmers, Davies, Monti 2011
7:
772:
488:
10:
2279:
2088:Cambridge University Press
887:A long term resident is a
698:
268:United Kingdom nationality
392:European Court of Justice
189:Citizens Rights Directive
160:
155:
148:
143:
135:
125:
117:
104:
97:
91:European Court of Justice
83:
78:
2199:House of Commons Library
2040:Cambien, Nathan (2009).
789:
396:marriages of convenience
325:
98:Submitted 25 March 2008
2141:John, Laura Elizabeth.
920:Sharpston in the case.
874:Article 3(1)(c) of the
858:Commission v Spain 2005
742:On 5 October 2012, the
718:designed to discourage
564:Article 3(1)(c) of the
550:Commission v Spain 2005
320:rights of establishment
808:European Economic Area
372:prior lawful residence
334:national married to a
253:prior lawful residence
136:Nationality of parties
386:made a request for a
384:High Court of Ireland
179:(2008) C-127/08 is a
144:Legislation affecting
2086:(2nd ed.). UK:
1709:Fernhout, Wever 2012
1649:. 25 September 2008.
1038:Directive 2004/38/EC
897:family reunification
712:family reunification
642:is much enhanced by
276:Minister for Justice
100:Decided 25 July 2008
2155:on 27 November 2012
1948:on 17 December 2012
1900:on 26 December 2012
1804:on 25 December 2015
1724:Raad van State 2012
591:The second question
121:C-127/08 ECR I-6241
2208:on 1 December 2012
2084:European Union Law
1976:on 2 December 2012
1876:on 8 November 2012
1828:on 2 November 2014
1756:on 8 November 2012
1279:, pp. 327–30.
1080:Uecker and Jacquet
962:Article 56 of the
626:The third question
524:The first question
514:European Community
388:preliminary ruling
249:right of residence
217:European Community
193:family unification
181:European Union law
2193:Thorp, Arabella.
2174:MigrationWatch UK
2168:Mitchell, Harry.
1964:Flemish Insurance
1852:on 8 October 2012
1630:, pp. 471–2.
1534:, pp. 475–6.
1486:, pp. 471–3.
1438:, pp. 463–4.
1390:, pp. 511–7.
1318:, pp. 336–8.
1303:, pp. 330–6.
1114:, pp. 324–7.
1067:, pp. 470–1.
1052:, pp. 444–7.
1028:, pp. 321–2.
909:Flemish Insurance
863:Directive 2004/38
841:Directive 2004/38
806:indicates it has
804:Directive 2004/38
582:Flemish Insurance
446:being submitted.
412:Irish legislation
404:Directive 2004/38
376:staying illegally
172:
171:
150:Directive 2004/38
72:
71:
51:length guidelines
16:(Redirected from
2270:
2217:
2215:
2213:
2207:
2201:. Archived from
2189:
2187:
2185:
2180:on 15 April 2013
2176:. Archived from
2164:
2162:
2160:
2154:
2147:
2137:
2135:
2133:
2116:
2078:
2076:
2074:
2069:on 16 March 2016
2065:. Archived from
2046:
2029:
2027:
2025:
2009:
2007:
2005:
1996:. Archived from
1985:
1983:
1981:
1972:. Archived from
1957:
1955:
1953:
1944:. Archived from
1933:
1931:
1929:
1920:. Archived from
1909:
1907:
1905:
1896:. Archived from
1885:
1883:
1881:
1872:. Archived from
1861:
1859:
1857:
1848:. Archived from
1837:
1835:
1833:
1824:. Archived from
1813:
1811:
1809:
1800:. Archived from
1789:
1787:
1785:
1776:. Archived from
1765:
1763:
1761:
1752:. Archived from
1727:
1721:
1712:
1711:, pp. 13–7.
1706:
1700:
1699:
1686:
1680:
1679:
1657:
1651:
1650:
1637:
1631:
1625:
1616:
1611:
1605:
1600:
1594:
1589:
1583:
1577:
1571:
1565:
1559:
1553:
1547:
1541:
1535:
1529:
1523:
1517:
1511:
1505:
1499:
1493:
1487:
1481:
1475:
1469:
1463:
1457:
1451:
1445:
1439:
1433:
1427:
1421:
1415:
1409:
1403:
1397:
1391:
1385:
1379:
1373:
1367:
1361:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1337:
1331:
1325:
1319:
1313:
1304:
1298:
1292:
1286:
1280:
1274:
1268:
1262:
1256:
1250:
1244:
1238:
1232:
1226:
1220:
1214:
1205:
1199:
1193:
1187:
1181:
1175:
1162:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1141:
1139:
1125:"Case C-127/08 (
1121:
1115:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1094:
1092:
1074:
1068:
1062:
1053:
1047:
1041:
1035:
1029:
1023:
1011:
1010:
1002:
1000:
986:"Case C-109/01 (
982:
967:
960:
954:
943:
937:
927:
921:
918:Advocate General
906:
900:
885:
879:
872:
866:
854:
848:
837:
831:
802:The Citizenship
800:
720:forced marriages
679:
678:
674:
660:
440:Advocate General
336:British national
197:migrant citizens
88:
76:
75:
67:
64:
58:
49:Please read the
35:
34:
27:
21:
2278:
2277:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2248:
2247:
2224:
2211:
2209:
2205:
2183:
2181:
2158:
2156:
2152:
2145:
2131:
2129:
2113:
2072:
2070:
2044:
2023:
2021:
2020:on 3 March 2016
2003:
2001:
2000:on 10 July 2019
1979:
1977:
1951:
1949:
1927:
1925:
1924:on 21 June 2022
1903:
1901:
1879:
1877:
1855:
1853:
1831:
1829:
1807:
1805:
1783:
1781:
1780:on 10 June 2022
1759:
1757:
1736:
1731:
1730:
1722:
1715:
1707:
1703:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1667:The Irish Times
1658:
1654:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1626:
1619:
1612:
1608:
1601:
1597:
1590:
1586:
1578:
1574:
1566:
1562:
1554:
1550:
1542:
1538:
1530:
1526:
1518:
1514:
1506:
1502:
1494:
1490:
1482:
1478:
1470:
1466:
1458:
1454:
1446:
1442:
1434:
1430:
1422:
1418:
1410:
1406:
1398:
1394:
1386:
1382:
1374:
1370:
1362:
1358:
1350:
1346:
1338:
1334:
1326:
1322:
1314:
1307:
1299:
1295:
1287:
1283:
1275:
1271:
1263:
1259:
1251:
1247:
1239:
1235:
1227:
1223:
1215:
1208:
1200:
1196:
1188:
1184:
1176:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1137:
1135:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1110:
1106:
1090:
1088:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1063:
1056:
1048:
1044:
1036:
1032:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1014:
998:
996:
984:
983:
976:
971:
970:
961:
957:
944:
940:
928:
924:
907:
903:
889:non-EU national
886:
882:
873:
869:
855:
851:
838:
834:
801:
797:
792:
775:
740:
701:
676:
672:
671:
654:
636:
491:
368:residence cards
361:Polish national
357:German national
349:British citizen
345:non-EU national
328:
308:British citizen
237:non-EU national
99:
93:
68:
62:
59:
48:
45:may be too long
40:This article's
36:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2276:
2266:
2265:
2260:
2246:
2245:
2240:
2235:
2230:
2223:
2222:External links
2220:
2219:
2218:
2190:
2165:
2138:
2117:
2112:978-0521121514
2111:
2079:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2030:
2010:
1986:
1958:
1934:
1910:
1886:
1862:
1838:
1814:
1790:
1766:
1741:
1740:
1735:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1713:
1701:
1681:
1652:
1632:
1617:
1606:
1595:
1584:
1572:
1560:
1548:
1536:
1524:
1512:
1500:
1488:
1476:
1464:
1452:
1448:Sharpston 2007
1440:
1428:
1416:
1404:
1392:
1380:
1368:
1356:
1354:, p. 319.
1344:
1332:
1320:
1305:
1293:
1281:
1269:
1257:
1245:
1233:
1221:
1206:
1194:
1182:
1163:
1151:
1116:
1104:
1069:
1054:
1042:
1030:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1012:
973:
972:
969:
968:
955:
938:
922:
901:
880:
867:
849:
832:
828:European Union
794:
793:
791:
788:
787:
786:
781:
774:
771:
770:
769:
765:
762:
759:
739:
736:
700:
697:
638:The effect of
635:
632:
537:member state.
531:residence card
510:
509:
505:
502:
499:
490:
487:
451:Czech Republic
427:
426:
423:
415:
327:
324:
272:residence card
245:national rules
232:member state.
225:European Union
209:Union citizens
170:
169:
163:Union citizens
158:
157:
153:
152:
146:
145:
141:
140:
137:
133:
132:
127:
123:
122:
119:
115:
114:
108:
106:Full case name
102:
101:
95:
94:
89:
81:
80:
70:
69:
39:
37:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2275:
2264:
2261:
2259:
2256:
2255:
2253:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2236:
2234:
2231:
2229:
2226:
2225:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2191:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2166:
2151:
2144:
2139:
2128:on 6 May 2014
2127:
2123:
2118:
2114:
2108:
2104:
2101:, p. 470, at
2100:
2099:
2095:
2094:
2089:
2085:
2080:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2051:
2043:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2032:
2019:
2015:
2011:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1965:
1959:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1739:Legal sources
1738:
1737:
1725:
1720:
1718:
1710:
1705:
1697:
1696:
1695:TheJournal.ie
1691:
1685:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1663:
1656:
1648:
1647:
1642:
1636:
1629:
1624:
1622:
1615:
1610:
1604:
1599:
1593:
1588:
1581:
1576:
1569:
1564:
1557:
1552:
1545:
1540:
1533:
1528:
1521:
1516:
1509:
1504:
1497:
1492:
1485:
1480:
1473:
1468:
1461:
1456:
1449:
1444:
1437:
1432:
1425:
1420:
1413:
1408:
1401:
1396:
1389:
1384:
1377:
1372:
1365:
1360:
1353:
1348:
1341:
1336:
1329:
1324:
1317:
1312:
1310:
1302:
1297:
1290:
1285:
1278:
1273:
1266:
1261:
1254:
1249:
1243:, p. 10.
1242:
1237:
1230:
1225:
1218:
1217:Mitchell 2009
1213:
1211:
1203:
1198:
1191:
1186:
1179:
1174:
1172:
1170:
1168:
1160:
1155:
1148:
1147:
1134:
1130:
1128:
1120:
1113:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1087:
1083:
1081:
1073:
1066:
1061:
1059:
1051:
1046:
1039:
1034:
1027:
1022:
1018:
1009:
1008:
995:
991:
989:
981:
979:
974:
965:
959:
952:
947:
942:
935:
931:
926:
919:
915:
910:
905:
898:
894:
890:
884:
877:
871:
864:
859:
856:For example,
853:
846:
842:
836:
829:
825:
821:
820:Liechtenstein
817:
813:
809:
805:
799:
795:
785:
782:
780:
777:
776:
766:
763:
760:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
745:
735:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
696:
694:
690:
686:
681:
667:
665:
658:
653:
649:
645:
641:
631:
628:
627:
623:
620:
617:
615:
609:
605:
601:
599:
593:
592:
588:
585:
583:
577:
573:
569:
567:
561:
558:
553:
551:
547:
543:
538:
534:
532:
526:
525:
521:
517:
515:
506:
503:
500:
496:
495:
494:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
424:
420:
419:Union citizen
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
397:
393:
389:
385:
380:
377:
373:
369:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
337:
333:
330:Metock was a
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
300:
295:
293:
289:
285:
279:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
230:
226:
220:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
177:
168:
164:
159:
154:
151:
147:
142:
138:
134:
131:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
109:
107:
103:
96:
92:
87:
82:
77:
74:
66:
56:
52:
46:
44:
38:
29:
28:
19:
2210:. Retrieved
2203:the original
2182:. Retrieved
2178:the original
2157:. Retrieved
2150:the original
2130:. Retrieved
2126:the original
2103:Google Books
2098:
2091:
2083:
2071:. Retrieved
2067:the original
2054:
2048:
2022:. Retrieved
2018:the original
2002:. Retrieved
1998:the original
1978:. Retrieved
1974:the original
1963:
1950:. Retrieved
1946:the original
1926:. Retrieved
1922:the original
1902:. Retrieved
1898:the original
1878:. Retrieved
1874:the original
1854:. Retrieved
1850:the original
1830:. Retrieved
1826:the original
1806:. Retrieved
1802:the original
1782:. Retrieved
1778:the original
1758:. Retrieved
1754:the original
1704:
1693:
1684:
1665:
1655:
1644:
1635:
1609:
1598:
1587:
1575:
1563:
1551:
1539:
1527:
1515:
1503:
1491:
1479:
1467:
1455:
1443:
1431:
1419:
1407:
1395:
1383:
1371:
1359:
1347:
1335:
1323:
1316:Cambien 2009
1301:Cambien 2009
1296:
1284:
1277:Cambien 2009
1272:
1260:
1248:
1236:
1224:
1197:
1185:
1180:, p. 2.
1154:
1144:
1143:
1136:. Retrieved
1126:
1119:
1112:Cambien 2009
1107:
1097:
1096:
1089:. Retrieved
1079:
1072:
1045:
1033:
1026:Cambien 2009
1021:
1005:
1004:
997:. Retrieved
987:
958:
945:
941:
933:
929:
925:
908:
904:
893:member state
883:
870:
861:Citizenship
857:
852:
845:member state
835:
798:
755:
751:
741:
731:
723:
716:24-year rule
702:
688:
684:
682:
668:
663:
652:Europe route
647:
643:
639:
637:
634:Significance
629:
625:
624:
621:
618:
613:
610:
606:
602:
597:
594:
590:
589:
586:
581:
578:
574:
570:
562:
554:
549:
545:
541:
539:
535:
527:
523:
522:
518:
511:
492:
448:
428:
408:member state
381:
365:
329:
315:
311:
302:
298:
296:
280:
257:
240:
234:
228:
221:
213:member state
175:
174:
173:
167:member state
110:
73:
60:
43:lead section
41:
2212:27 November
2184:27 November
2159:27 November
2073:27 November
2057:: 321–342.
2004:28 November
1952:27 November
1928:27 November
1880:28 November
1856:14 November
1832:27 November
1580:Metock 2008
1568:Metock 2008
1556:Metock 2008
1544:Metock 2008
1520:Metock 2008
1508:Metock 2008
1496:Metock 2008
1472:Metock 2008
1460:Metock 2008
1424:Metock 2008
1412:Metock 2008
1400:Metock 2008
1376:Metock 2008
1364:Metock 2008
1340:Metock 2008
1328:Metock 2008
1265:Metock 2008
1253:Metock 2008
1229:Metock 2008
1202:Metock 2008
1190:Metock 2008
1159:Metock 2008
1138:13 November
1091:27 November
999:14 November
824:Switzerland
738:Netherlands
655: [
557:competences
485:was heard.
471:Netherlands
457:, Germany,
332:Cameroonian
247:making the
130:62008CA0127
18:Metock case
2252:Categories
2132:2 December
2034:Literature
2024:2 December
1980:2 December
1904:3 December
1808:1 December
1784:1 December
1760:3 December
1734:References
1670:. Dublin.
1289:CURIA 2008
1241:Thorp 2009
951:Treaty law
865:correctly.
284:competence
195:rules for
2063:1076-6715
1698:. Dublin.
1676:0791-5144
1178:John 2008
704:Denmark's
432:Article 8
288:Article 8
187:, on the
161:Right of
63:June 2016
53:and help
1646:RTÉ News
773:See also
768:expired?
489:Judgment
353:Nigerian
260:Cameroon
156:Keywords
2093:p. 470
1970:EUR-Lex
1942:EUR-Lex
1918:EUR-Lex
1894:EUR-Lex
1870:EUR-Lex
1846:EUR-Lex
1822:EUR-Lex
1798:EUR-Lex
1774:EUR-Lex
1750:EUR-Lex
1133:EUR-Lex
1086:EUR-Lex
994:EUR-Lex
914:Opinion
812:Iceland
708:opt-out
699:Denmark
675:⁄
479:Finland
475:Austria
455:Denmark
444:Opinion
434:of the
390:to the
290:of the
185:Denmark
126:CelexID
2109:
2061:
1674:
1614:Akrich
1127:Metock
988:Akrich
818:, and
816:Norway
732:Metock
724:Metock
689:Metock
685:Metock
664:Akrich
640:Metock
542:Akrich
498:state.
469:, the
463:Cyprus
459:Greece
422:state?
340:asylum
316:Metock
312:Akrich
303:Akrich
264:asylum
241:Metock
229:Metock
219:(EC).
112:Reform
79:Metock
2206:(PDF)
2153:(PDF)
2146:(PDF)
2045:(PDF)
1994:CURIA
1603:Singh
830:(EU).
790:Notes
756:Singh
659:]
648:Singh
467:Malta
402:Does
326:Facts
2214:2012
2186:2012
2161:2012
2134:2012
2107:ISBN
2075:2012
2059:ISSN
2026:2012
2006:2012
1982:2012
1954:2012
1930:2012
1906:2012
1882:2012
1858:2012
1834:2012
1810:2012
1786:2012
1762:2012
1672:ISSN
1592:Eind
1140:2012
1093:2012
1001:2012
946:MRAX
934:Eind
930:Eind
754:and
752:Eind
646:and
644:Eind
614:MRAX
598:Eind
548:and
546:MRAX
382:The
191:and
118:Case
1582:, .
1570:, .
1558:, .
1546:, .
1522:, .
1510:, .
1498:, .
1474:, .
1462:, .
1450:, .
1426:, .
1414:, .
1402:, .
1378:, .
1366:, .
1342:, .
1330:, .
1291:, .
1267:, .
1255:, .
1231:, .
1204:, .
1192:, .
1161:, .
916:of
2254::
2197:.
2172:.
2105:.
2097:ff
2090:.
2055:15
2053:.
2047:.
1992:.
1968:.
1966:)"
1940:.
1916:.
1892:.
1868:.
1844:.
1820:.
1796:.
1772:.
1748:.
1716:^
1692:.
1664:.
1643:.
1620:^
1308:^
1209:^
1166:^
1142:.
1131:.
1095:.
1084:.
1057:^
1003:.
992:.
977:^
822:.
814:,
734:.
657:nl
616:.
600:.
552:.
477:,
473:,
465:,
461:,
453:,
322:.
235:A
199:.
2216:.
2188:.
2163:.
2136:.
2115:.
2077:.
2028:.
2008:.
1984:.
1956:.
1932:.
1908:.
1884:.
1860:.
1836:.
1812:.
1788:.
1764:.
1726:.
1678:.
1219:.
1040:.
677:2
673:1
414:?
65:)
61:(
57:.
47:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
