"The McCarthy Case"

JUDGMENT IN CASE C-434/09 / SHIRLEY MCCARTHY V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Another greatly anticipated judgment has been delivered from the European Court of Justice in what has become know as "The McCarthy Case". The case involved a dual national of the United Kingdom and Ireland who was born in the United Kingdom and has always resided there, without ever having exercised her right to move and reside freely within the territory of other EU Member States. She applied for a residence card for her spouse pursuant to European Law, and particularly Directive 2004/38. The UK  Supreme Court referred a query to the Court of Justice regarding whether Mrs McCarthy could invoke the rules of European Union law designed to facilitate the movement of persons within the territory of the Member States.  

The Court of Justice found that Ms McCarthy could not properly rely on the Directive as it protects the right to travel/reside only of those Union citizens who have exercised free movement. The Court further stated as follows:

“Article 21 TFEU is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State, provided that the situation of that citizen does not include the application of measures by a Member State that would have the effect of depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen or of impeding the exercise of his right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States.”

Thus, in the absence of national measures that have the effect of depriving Union Citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their rights arising by virtue of her status as a Union citizen, such measures have no connection with European Union law and are covered exclusively by national law. 

It is easily interpreted from the Court of Justice’s reasoning that if the UK had taken measures which would infringe upon Ms McCarthy’s genuine enjoyment of her rights as a Union Citizen, this would bring the matter within the domain of European Law. For example, should the UK authorities actually have taken the step to refuse Ms McCarthy’s husband a right of residency under National provisions, without good reason, her rights as a Union citizen would then be infringed and she would have an action in EU Law. Prior to such action by the UK authorities, it seems the Court of Justice will give the UK the benefit of the presumption that they will apply a domestic standard acceptable in European Law terms. Thus, there appears within the judgment a warning to Member States to maintain national measures affecting the citizens of their State such that they do not infringe upon the substance of Union Citizen’s rights.  

It must be accepted that fundamental to these rights of Union Citizens is an entitlement to reside in the Member State of one’s nationality with one’s immediate family members, and additionally, by way of comparison to Directive 2004/38, such dependant family members of one’s spouse/partner. This effectively confirms the Reverse Discrimination argument that we have argued in many of our cases before the High Court – that an Irish citizen cannot properly be treated less favourably under national law than a European Union citizen from another Member State residing in Ireland who can benefit from European Law.

We look forward to any comments or questions you might have on this new decision.

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

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