Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:09:58.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

European Court of Justice: Metock and Others v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Peter Stamp
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Matthew J. Elsmore
Affiliation:
Aarhus School of Business-University of Aarhus, Denmark

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Report
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endnotes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the EUR-Lex Reference Center website: (visited October 8, 2008) < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0127:EN:HTML >

page 860 note 1 See Council Directive 2004/38, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77-123 (EC) (codifying the right of citizens of the European Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Eu has been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on April 29, 2004). The Directive codified the existing legislation and case law in the area of free movement. Thus, it is important to also review the case-law and Article 18 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Nov. 10, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) [hereinafter EC Treaty], which lays down the substantive rights connected with citizenship of the Union. The EC Treaty confers on every EU citizen a primary and individual right to move and reside freely on the territory of the Union, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and to the measures adopted to give it effect. See Council Directive 2004/38/EC (dealing with such limitations and conditions).

page 861 note 2 Case C-109/01, Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't v. Hacene Akrich, 2003 E.C.R. I-09607 [hereinafter Akrich].

page 861 note 3 Case C-1/05, Jia v. Migrationsverket, 2007 E.C.R. I-00001.

page 861 note 4 It is not at all clear what the ECJ meant by “prior lawful residence” in Akrich. For the principle to have any effect it is obviously not sufficient that the third-country national is staying within the EU on a tourist visa or as an applicant for asylum, but that some kind of a more permanent residence right is needed. See Matthew J. Elsmore & Peter Starup, Case C-1/05, Yunying Jia v Migrationsverket, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 9 January 2007, 44 Common mkt. L. Rev. 787, 787-801 (2007).

page 861 note 5 Council Directive 2003/86, 2003 O.J. (L 251) 12 (EC).

page 861 note 6 Case C-60/00, Carpenter v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 2002 E.C.R. I-06279 (seemingly implying that in some situations it is not even necessary for the Eu citizen to live in another Member State).

page 861 note 7 Case C-370/90, The Queen v. Immigr. Appeal Tribunal & Surinder Singh, ex parte Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't, 1992 E.C.R. I-04265.

page 861 note 8 See EC Treaty, supra note 1, art. 234.

page 861 note 9 Commission Directive 2004/38 Report (EC) No. 840/3 of 10 Dec. 2008, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/intro/doc/com_2008_840_en.pdf.

page 861 note 10 See EC Treaty, supra note 1, arts. 226-228.

page 862 note * This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the EUR-Lex Reference Center website: (visited October 8, 2008) <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0127:EN:HTML>