## Facts

- Several third-country nationals entered Ireland and unsuccessfully sought asylum.
- Afterward, they married EU citizens who were lawfully residing and working in Ireland but were not Irish nationals.
- Irish authorities accepted the marriages were genuine and not marriages of convenience.
- Ireland’s implementing regulations for Directive 2004/38 required a third-country national spouse to have had prior lawful residence in another Member State before arriving in Ireland to qualify for a residence card.
- The Minister refused residence cards solely because the applicants lacked prior lawful residence in another Member State.
- The Irish High Court sought a preliminary ruling on whether the Irish requirement was compatible with Directive 2004/38; the Court of Justice proceeded under an accelerated procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether Directive 2004/38 permits a host Member State to condition residence rights of a third-country national spouse of a mobile EU citizen on prior lawful residence in another Member State.
2. Whether Directive 2004/38 applies when the third-country national entered the host Member State before the marriage, including where entry or residence was unlawful.
3. Whether earlier case law suggesting a prior lawful residence condition remained relevant after adoption of Directive 2004/38.

## Decision

- The Court held that Directive 2004/38 precludes national legislation requiring a third-country national spouse of a mobile EU citizen to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State as a condition for residence rights in the host Member State.
- The Directive applies to qualifying family members who “accompany or join” the EU citizen regardless of when or where the marriage occurred and regardless of the third-country national’s manner of entry or prior residence history.
- The Court interpreted Directive 2004/38 without relying on earlier authority that had suggested a prior lawful residence condition, treating that approach as inapplicable under the Directive’s framework.
- The Court recognized Member States may address abuse or security concerns through individualized measures under the Directive’s public policy/security and anti-fraud provisions, rather than by imposing a categorical prior-residence requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, beneficiary status for a third-country national “family member” of a mobile EU citizen does not depend on prior lawful residence in another Member State.
- A Member State may not add substantive eligibility conditions for residence rights that are not found in Directive 2004/38, including a general “prior lawful residence” filter.
- Directive 2004/38 protects the effectiveness of EU citizens’ free-movement rights by ensuring they can reside with qualifying family members in the host Member State.
- Concerns about unlawful entry, public policy, public security, public health, or abuse (including marriages of convenience) must be handled through the Directive’s case-by-case limitation and anti-fraud mechanisms, subject to proportionality and procedural safeguards.

## Conclusion

The Court required Member States to grant residence rights under Directive 2004/38 to third-country national spouses of EU citizens who have exercised free movement, without conditioning those rights on the spouse’s prior lawful residence in another Member State, while leaving targeted tools to address fraud and security risks.


Metock v. Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform (Case C-127/08), 2008 E.C.R. I-6241 (C.J.E.U. 2008)