ANALYSIS:YESTERDAY'S RULING ends a period of deep uncertainty for more than 1,000 spouses of EU citizens who have been living in legal limbo for the past year, writes Carl O'Brien, Social Affairs Correspondent.
The case itself involved four couples who appealed a decision by the Government to deport them because the husband in each case was not an EU citizen and has never lived lawfully in another EU state.
But it was watched by many more couples who did not know whether they would be able to continue to live in Ireland with their loved ones, given the confusion over this aspect of immigration law.
The ruling delivered yesterday by the European Court of Justice said Irish laws - requiring a spouse from a outside the EU to have lived in another member state - were incompatible with a directive on the free movement of EU citizens.
Under the EU directive, all citizens may reside in another member state as workers or students if they have sickness insurance and sufficient funds to not become a burden on the social welfare system.
Significantly, family members of a citizen of the EU also have the right to move and reside in the member states with that citizen. The ruling states that the application of this directive is "not conditional on their having previously resided in a member state".
"The definition of family members in the directive does not distinguish according to whether or not they have already resided lawfully in another member state," the ruling states.
This ruling now gives greater certainty to thousands of other couples in Ireland and across the EU over their residency rights.
There is little doubt that it is a blow for the Government. The EU judges dismissed its argument that not permitting this condition would mean a large increase in people benefiting from residency rights.
The Government will now have to review the 1,500-plus applications for residency rights which it refused over the past year or so. There is also the possibility that it could be open to damages from those who were unfairly deported.
For example, a number of spouses ended up being deported because they had no other status, such as a work permit. Others who were working were forced to stop and lose earnings on the basis of the Government's interpretation. However, it was not all bad news for the State. The court pointed out that EU governments do have the right to refuse entry and residency "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, the refusal being based on an individual examination of the particular case".
A finding that a marriage of convenience had been used to gain entry would allow a government to withdraw residency rights, but the timing and location of the marriage were not relevant.
The net effect of this is that a blanket ban on residency rights for non-EU spouses will not be tolerated any longer.
Instead, applications will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, an approach ultimately much more in keeping with the spirit of the freedom of movement directive.