What does it mean to be an EU citizen?

THE  EXTENDING ARMS OF UNION CITIZENSHIP

The Zambrano ruling, in simple terms, provides that EU Citizens do not need to move to generate rights of residence and work permits for their parents.  It is of course understood that Member States reserve the right to decide who is a citizen of that particular state by way of either 'jus soli' or 'jus sanguinis.'  This is not the issue.  With the 2004 referendum, the Irish people voted and the outcome provides that citizenship of a person born on the island of Ireland on or after 1 January, 2005 depends on the citizenship of the person's parents at the time of the person's birth or the residency history of one of the parents prior to the birth.

The Zambrano ruling has been the fuel of much academic debate on the concept of what it means to be a citizen of the Union. Who can avail of such rights and entitlements to family reunification, rights of residency and rights to work?  The current requirement of free movement is apparently redundant and it is clear that the model of Union citizenship is slowly but surely casting its shadow over the Member States, asserting its presence and filtering through traditional national policies and norms that were once free from EU interception.    

Ireland has traditionally had a pivotal role in previous ECJ decisions concerning Free Movement and Citizenship of the Union including cases such as 'Metock', 'Akrich' and 'Zhu and Chen.'  It is not surprising that our friends in Europe are keeping a watchful eye on Ireland and how our government and courts will choose to implement the ruling and it's significant ramifications for national immigration law. Ireland made its position clear in making representations in response to Advocate General Sharpston's opinion prior to the decision on Zambrano relying on the 'flood gates' theory.  We are reminded of the State's response in the earlier 'Chen' case, which saw the people turning to the ballot boxes for a referendum in 2004. 

While Minister Alan Shatter has committed to urgently reviewing all existing cases in the State in which Zambrano applies, his public statement on the ruling is also a plain recognition of the wider notion of EU measures and their implementation into the Member States,  something that troubles all Member States:      

'The Zambrano judgment applies EU law to certain situations which had
previously been considered to be internal to a Member State and to be
regulated by national law, not EU law. Indeed, all the Member State
Governments which submitted observations to the European Court of Justice
in the Zambrano case, and the European Commission, submitted that the
provisions of European Union law referred to by the Belgian court in its
reference to the European Court of Justice were not applicable to the
dispute in the main proceedings. However, the Court of Justice ruled
otherwise.'

We anticipate further referrals to the European Court of Justice along with new legislation and policies both to emanate from the EU and Ireland to deal with the array of cases and issues that will arise as a result of Zambrano.  And as the State takes legal advice on dealing with 'Zambrano' type cases at home, the Zambrano ruling is to be appreciated as a landmark recognition of and a strengthening of the citizenship of the Union model which will have consequences and implications on future rulings on our rights and entitlements as citizens of the Union.

Sarah McCoy, Brophy Solicitors

Reflections on Zambrano

ATTENDANCE AT SEMINAR ON THE ZAMBRANO DECISION AND ITS IMPACT ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EU LAW AND IMMIGRATION LAW IN IRELAND

Yesterday evening I attended a seminar on the recent Zambrano judgement, presented by Dr. Stephen Carruthers, Dr. Elaine Fahey and Dr. Fergus Ryan at the Dublin Institute of Technology. 

The speakers addressed some of the many queries that the Zambrano judgement has raised. At the outset, it was acknowledged by all speakers that the judgement is certainly a landmark decision in EU law, and was referred to as being of as much significance as the seminal “Van Gen Den Loos” judgement of 1963, which established the concept of Direct Effect in EU Law.

The speakers discussed the most major development progressed in Zambrano, which is that the Court of Justice has established a source of EU legal rights independent of the “Free Movement” requirement which until now has been a fundamental prerequisite. There followed an interesting discussion on what the parameters of this progressive step might be, which are of course difficult to ascertain at this time.

The speakers pointed out a number of interesting points concerning the Zambrano judgement.

It is set out in a short nine page judgement, and it was suggested that the implication of this being that there may have been much dissent amongst the judges who are required to reach a unanimous determination.

It was also pointed out that Advocate General Sharpstens analysis and conclusions regarding reverse discrimination were avoided by the ECJ and thus we are left with more question s than answers – the obvious question being why can all Irish citizens not now also rely on their Union citizenship rights, and claim all entitlements deriving there from. From an Irish Immigration point of view, such a position would lead to huge changes as currently, Irish citizens' rights in respect of family unity in particular are quite restrictive compared to those protections afforded by Directive 2004/38 to EU citizens of other Member States residing in Ireland.

The speakers also pointed out the unusual sequence of the ECJ’s reasoning in coming to this point of view – in the Metock case, the ECJ deviated from its own previous judgement in Akrich and confirmed that Union citizens family members have entitlements to join the Union Citizen without having to first reside in another Member State. This judgement confirmed the position that Union citizens must exercise free movement in order to trigger their EU Treaty Rights. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the McCarty case should be watched with interest, as the ECJ have been referred queries of the status of dual nationals. It is expected that this might be the next big judgement, which might shed light on many of the questions that Zambrano has left unanswered.

It was pointed out that the judges refrained from assessing the human rights aspects to the case, and particularly the best interest of the child principles and comparisons were made to the recent case of ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

When discussion was opened to the floor, queries were posed regarding the retrospective aspect of the decision, the expansiveness of the family members that the principles  could be applied to, the importance of the dependency factor, the importance of financial self sufficiency, and so on. 

The speakers gave interesting perspectives on the changes and were most engaging and passionate on the subject. However, ultimately the questions cannot be definitively answered, and it remains to be seen what will happen next… We will be posting any new developments here and welcome any comments or questions you might have.

Karen Berkeley, Brophy Solicitors

Migrant Workers in the Recession

IRISH JOBS FOR IRISH PEOPLE

A number of months ago I very briefly skimmed though one of Ian O’Doherty’s articles in the Irish Times wherein he mocked Gerry Adams, ‘the foreigner,’ coming down here and taking a seat in the Dail at a time when we are trying to keep Irish jobs for Irish people!

As a ‘foreigner’ myself coming from the North of Ireland and working in Dublin, I found O’Doherty’s comments mildly amusing as I thought of myself, for the first time as a foreigner – advising migrants on their rights to reside and work in the State.  Anyway, politics and views on Gerry Adams aside, the recession, as to be expected led to a feeling that we must protect and value OUR workers in the State, the Irish. 

The reality is that migrant workers in Ireland have been dealt a huge blow by the recession.  They are the least likely to be employed and the most susceptible group to exploitation in the work place.  Economic Social Research Institute figures show migrant workers are the hardest hit by the recession and three times more likely to lose their jobs than their Irish counterparts. In 2007, some 345,800 non-Irish were employed. That has now fallen 36 per cent to 220,000, leaving 125,000 people in need of social assistance.  

Statistics show a high percentage of negative decisions against non-Irish people trying to access State services leading to situations of homelessness, theft and awful standards of living.  The majority of cases that we have looked into show that the applicant is entitled to assistance having resided and worked for the appropriate time in the State.  Onerous and subjective habitual residency rules are often misinterpreted and misapplied to a large extent by State officials.  While the rules were put in place to stop ‘welfare tourism’ in Ireland, the current policy calls for urgent review to avoid a situation whereby non-Irish people, the majority of whom are EU citizens, do not fall outside the net when applying for State assistance that they are entitled to.  I do not envy any ‘foreigner’ who has lost their job in Ireland and who seeks assistance for themselves and their family.  Not only are the rules in place extremely complex and burdensome, the appeals and review procedure is something that would certainly deter a person from following through with the process in the first place.

Sarah McCoy, Brophy Solicitors

01.04.11