Zambrano Update! Decision of the Court of Justice in Dereci

The Court of Justice yesterday issued its judgement in Dereci and Others v Bundesministers fur Inneres .

As you may recall from our previous posting this referral by an Austrian court sought clarification on the findings of Zambrano and the interpretation of the Union citizenship provisions in Article 20 TFEU. 

In brief, the facts of the case involve Mr Dereci, the first named applicant, a Turkish national who arrived in the Member State without permission in 2001 and unsuccessfully applied for asylum. He then married an Austrian citizen in 2003 and had three children, all citizens of the Union and all still minors. Mr Dereci did not enjoy permission to work and reside in the State and his spouse was reliant on state welfare payments to support the family. The Union citizens had not exercised their right of free movement and resided in Austria throughout.

The question being determined by the Austrian courts was whether Mr Dereci had a right of residency in Austria. In order to determine this, a preliminary reference was made to the Court of Justice asking, in summary, whether Article 20 TFEU precludes a Member State from refusing a national of a non-member country – whose spouse and minor children are Union citizens – residence of that Member State even where the Union citizens are not dependent on the national of the non-member country for their subsistence. 

In its decision, the Court firstly notes that the ‘free movement directive’, Directive 2004/38 does not apply to the situations at issue because the beneficiaries have not exercised their rights of free movement and continue to reside in Austria. 

The Court then goes on to consider whether the Union citizens may rely directly on the provisions of the Treaty itself concerning citizenship of the Union. The Court notes that such reliance does not require an exercise of free movement and cannot be viewed as purely internal and untouched by EU law, stating at paragraph 61: “the situation of a Union citizen who, like each of the citizens who are family members of the applicants in the main proceedings, has not made use of the right to freedom of movement cannot, for that reason alone, be assimilated to a purely internal situation”.

 

The Court reiterates as stated in Zambrano, that citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States and finds that as nationals of a Member State, family members of the applicants in the proceedings enjoy and may rely on their Union citizen rights under Article 20(1) TFEU, including against their Member State of origin, in this case Austria. 

Returning again to the wording used in Zambrano, the Court finds that Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of the status. There is seemingly an obligation on the Member State to observe the genuine enjoyment of the substance of rights as a Union citizen.

So what then, qualifies as genuine enjoyment of the substance of those rights?

The Court here refers again refers to the logic of Zambrano: denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights refer to “situations in which the Union citizen has in fact, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also the territory of the Union as a whole.” Economic reasons, or desire to keep a family together in the territory of the Union, are not found here to be sufficient reason without prejudice to the question of whether the protection of family life is threatened.

With respect of the protection of family life, the Court refers to the protections afforded by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court notes the obligation on the Member State to observe the right to respect for private and family life but does not elaborate greatly on how those protections may apply in the situations referred. The Court states that should the referring court where it considers that the situation is covered by European Union Law, it must consider Article 7 of the Charter and if it considers that the situation is not covered, it must undertake an examination under Article 8 of the ECHR. Either way, an examination of the right to family and private life is necessary but there is no guidance offered by the Court on where such family protections rank in the genuine enjoyment of the substance of Union citizens rights.

  

The Court then concludes with respect of the question referred:

“In the light of the foregoing observations the answer to the first question is that

European Union law and, in particular, its provisions on citizenship of the Union, must be

interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third country national to reside on its territory, where that third country national wishes to reside with a member of his family who is a citizen of the Union residing in the Member State of which he has nationality, who has never exercised his right to freedom of movement, provided that such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a citizen of the Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.”

The decision has therefore provided some clarity on the circumstances in which a non-national may rely on the rights of a Union citizen spouse or child: the basic premise is that the Union citizen must not denied the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their Union citizen rights and can rely on the citizenship provisions in the Treaty directly, despite not exercising their free movement rights.

However, the decision appears to be lacking in detail on the circumstances in which there is likely to be a denial of genuine enjoyment of the substance of those citizenship rights enjoyed by the Union citizen. On the one hand, it appears that the Court has given some leeway to the Member State to refuse a third country residence where their arguments for the rights of residence centre on convenience, economic reasons and a wish to keep the family together. A real threat of relocation outside the Member State and the Union as a whole must be established. However, on the other hand, the Court spells out that it is incumbent on Member State to examine family and private life protections and where spousal ties and relationships with minor children are at question, it appears that such protections may weigh in favour of a right of residence.

We intend to further digest this decision and post updates on its likely impact here in Ireland. As always, we welcome any question or comments you might have.

Brophy Solicitors

16.11.11

Significant Development in Irish Immigration Law - Decision in Zambrano

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE APPLICATION OF EU TREATY RIGHTS LAW –ZAMBRANO V OFFICE NATIONAL DE L’EMPLOI

The European Court of Justice has just delivered a judgement - Case C-34/0 Ruiz Zambrano v Office National De L'Emploi - which will have major implications in respect of the right to reside for non EEA family members of Union Citizens within the territory of their own national State. Until now, Union Citizens could only exercise their EU Treaty Rights on moving from one to another Member State, hence the body of law which developed became known as “Free Movement Law”.

Mr Ruiz Zambrano and his wife, both Colombian nationals, applied for asylum in Belgium due to the civil war in Colombia. The Belgian authorities refused to grant them refugee status and ordered them to leave Belgium. The couple continued to reside in Belgium while awaiting applications to regularise their status. Mr Ruiz Zambrano's wife gave birth to two children who acquired Belgian nationality. At the time of birth of the children, Mr Zambrano was financially self-sufficient. He later became unemployed and was refused unemployment benefits because the Belgian authorities found that he did not comply with the foreigners' residence requirements under national legislation. Mr and Mrs Ruiz Zambrano were also refused residency application in their capacity as ascendants of Belgian nationals.

Proceedings were issued on behalf of Mr and Mrs Zambrano, and a reference was made to the European Court of Justice seeking clarification on whether the Zambranos could rely on rely on European Union law to reside and work in Belgium on the basis of their parentage to Union citizen children who have never exercised their rights to free movement.

The ECJ confirmed that as Union citizens, the Zambrano children enjoyed the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States. The ECJ confirmed that European Union law precludes national measures, which have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union. The ECJ held that if the Belgium authorities refused a right of residence and work to Mr and Mrs Zambrano, this would in effect deprive their dependant Union citizen children of their fundament rights to reside within the European Union, as they would be obliged to leave Belgium with their parents.

In summary, the ECJ held that as follows;

“Citizenship of the Union requires a Member State to allow third country nationals who are parents of a child, who is a national of that Member State, to reside and work there, where a refusal to do so would deprive that child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the Union. This requirement applies even when the child has never exercised his right to free movement within the territory of the Member State.”

The implications of this judgement are potentially very wide ranging. The ECJ’s reasoning can be applied to all domestic law cases whereby Union citizens are seeking residence permission for their family members or dependants within their own national State. Thus, Irish citizens may now seek to rely on a huge body of European legislation and caselaw in respect of the right to be joined and reside with family members, such law having previously been deemed to be extraneous to their case. Many deportation orders against parents of Irish citizen children may have to be reconsidered, including deportations which have already been effected. Similarly, visa applications in respect of family members of Irish citizens may no longer be regarded to be at the absolute discretion of the Minister for Justice. Previously refused visa applications may require review. 

The next year will certainly be an interesting one in the field of Irish Immigration Law! We look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions on this important development.

Karen Berkeley, Brophy Solicitors

10.03.11