being the citizen of the Union to reside on the territory of the state - member not being the country of his citizenship, together with the parent - the citizen of the third country. The question was in refusal of authorities of Great Britain to give the sanction to long-term stay for a 4-years citizen of Ireland of the Chinese origin and her mother, the citizen of the Chinese People's Republic. The later has arrived in Great Britain as the time visitor for 6 month of pregnancy and gave birth to the child in Northern Ireland so that she became the citizen of Ireland. On the event of consideration of the case the mother and the child resided in the United Kingdom.governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom have declared the number of preliminary remarks. First of all, they paid attention to the fact that the girl can not take advantage of regulations of the right of the Community, regulating the right to free movement and permanent residing as she has never left the territory of the state of stay. The court has rejected the given remark, having referred to the fact that the situation of the citizen of another state - member born in the state of stay and has not taken advantage of the right to free movement, (item 19) can not be considered as the internal reason. The government of Ireland has declared that the juvenile child can not enjoy advantages, guaranteed by the right of the Community. However the Court has confirmed the legal position that ability of the citizen of the state - member to have the rights guaranteed by the Treaty and the secondary right of the Community, and can not personally carry them out and can not be caused by coming of age of the interested person (item 20) .consideration of the case in essence the Court of EU has paid attention to the necessity of wide interpretation of regulations in which the basic principle of the right to movement [27] (item 31) is embodied. The court has not supported the offered by Ireland and Great Britain restrictive treatment of regulations of the Instruction 90/364 about necessity of presence at the citizen of the state - member of the sufficient financial assets, excluding the opportunity of use of resources of the accompanying member of the family, having recognized, that it is not the necessary condition of achieving of the pursued purpose - protection of public finances of states - members and that the given treatment is the disproportionate intervention in realization of freedom of movement and the right to permanent residence (item 33). According to the Court, the Instruction specifies the necessity to have the corresponding means, but does not contain any conditions concerning the source of their origin [28] (item 30) .court has come to the conclusion, that the child - of the citizen of the state - member who has medical insurance and who is under trusteeship of the parent of the citizen of the third country having sufficient means, has the right to residing in another state - member during the unlimited term (item 41). Thus the Court has paid attention to the fact that refusal to the parent in his right to residing in the state - member together with the child to whom by virtue of regulations of Article 18 and Instruction 90/364 is given the corresponding right, would lead to loss of the corresponding right as its realization inevitably assumes support of the juvenile child by the person under whose trusteeship he is. In the opinion of the Court, in such circumstances it should be authorized to the trustee to reside in the state - member during the whole term of stay of the child (item 45). According to the English documents, in the given case the Court of EU for the first time has recognized that priorities of the immigration policy of the state of stay can not be taken into account the view of realization of the rights of citizens of the Union [ 29] .the case Oulein [30] in Court of European Communities there has been put the question whether in view of the right of the Community states - members can condition the right of the citizen of another state - member to residing in their territory granting of the passport or the identification card. Having specified, that the principle of freedom of movement of persons is one of the fundamental principles of the Community (item 16), and the right to freedom of movement is given directly by the Treaty or the regulations adopted in execution (item 17), the Court has recognized representation by the state - member of the Union to the citizen of anther state - member of the sanction to stay as the measure directed to confirmation of the personal status in view of regulations of the right of the Community, instead of the measure generating the rights [31] (item 18). Representation of the valid passport or the identification card for the purpose of confirmation of the status of the citizen of EU is the administrative formality, whose unique purpose is to confirm, that by virtue of...
