CS and Rendón Marín: Union Citizens and their Criminal Third-Country National Parents – A Resurgence of the Ruiz Zambrano Ruling?
Maria Haag, PhD Researcher, European University Institute (Florence,
Italy) & Michigan Grotius Research Scholar, University of Michigan Law
School (Ann Arbor, Michigan)
Background
Five years ago, the CJEU delivered its infamous Grand Chamber
decision in C-34/09 Ruiz
Zambrano. It held that “Article 20 TFEU 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” (para 42, emphasis added). This 'genuine enjoyment'-protection
had two consequences. First, Union citizens could rely on Article 20 TFEU
against their Member State of nationality without having previously made use of
their rights to free movement and thus bypassing the Court's general lack of
jurisdiction in 'purely internal' situations. Secondly, Member States were
precluded from denying a right of residence to third-country national ('TCN')
parents or caretakers of minor citizens of that Member State, as these children
would otherwise be forced to leave the territory of the EU and thus no longer
able to make use of the rights granted by Union citizenship.
Shortly after the delivery of this ground-breaking judgment, the
Court of Justice proceeded to interpret Ruiz
Zambrano very narrowly in a series of cases (C-434/09 McCarthy,
C-256/11 Dereci
and Others, C-40/11 Iida,
C-356&357/11 O.
and S., C-87/12 Ymeraga
and Others, C‑86/12 Alokpa
and Moudoulou and C-115/15 NA)
leading many to wonder about the original significance of the Ruiz Zambrano
decision. In contrast to Ruiz Zambrano, these subsequent cases mostly concerned
the significance of Article 20 TFEU in a host Member State. The Court held that
the applicants fell outside the scope of Article 20, even if they had never
moved to another Member State, i.e. had been born in a Member State other than
their Member State of nationality and had never left. The most recent cases –
C-304/14 CS
and C-165/14 Rendón
Marín – however, Ruiz Zambrano decision, fully address the right under
Article 20 TFEU in the home Member State. On the 13th of September 2016, the
Grand Chamber delivered these two decisions in which it considered the effect of
a criminal record of a TCN parent on his or her derived residence right under
Article 20 TFEU and to what extent this right can be derogated on grounds of
public policy or public security.
C-304/14 CS: facts and judgment
The case in CS concerned a
Moroccan national, who resided in the UK together with her British national
son. In 2012, she was convicted of a criminal offence and given a prison
sentence of 12 months. Following her conviction, she was notified of her
deportation liability. Her subsequent application for asylum was denied. Upon
her appeal, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) found that
her deportation would violate her child's rights under Article 20 TFEU. The
Home Secretary was granted permission to appeal this decision before the Upper
Tribunal, which asked the CJEU, under which circumstances the expulsion of a TCN
caretaker of a Union citizen could be permitted under EU law and whether
Article 27 and 28 of the Directive
2004/38 (the ‘citizens’ Directive’, which sets out the main rules on EU
citizens who move to another Member State) had any effect in this case.
In its two-part decision, the Court firstly answered the question
whether a TCN parent of a Union citizen has a derived right of residence in the
home Member State under Article 20 TFEU and, secondly, if such a right can be
limited on grounds of public policy or public security.
The Court first firmly restated its holding in Ruiz Zambrano. It explained 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 their
status as Union citizens" (para 26; citing Ruiz Zambrano para 42). Furthermore, this means that "a right
of residence must … be granted to a third-country national who is a family
member of [a minor Union citizen] since the effectiveness of citizenship of the
Union would otherwise be undermined, if, as a consequence of refusal of such a
right that citizen would be obliged in practice to leave the territory of the
European Union as whole" (para 29). CS thus had a derived right of
residence under Article 20 TFEU in her son's home Member State.
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email
Reacties