The judgment extensively referenced previous cases from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and Irish courts to substantiate the interpretation of dependency. Key cases include:

• Jia v Migrationsverket (Case C-1/05): Established that dependency must exist in the home country prior to moving.
• Reyes v Migrationsverket (Case C-423/12): Reinforced the principle that dependency is assessed based on the situation in the home country at the time of application.
• Rahman (Case C-83/11): Clarified that dependency assessment applies to specific family members under the Citizenship Directive.
• Voican v Chief Appeals Officer [2020] IEHC 258: Supported the interpretation that dependency must be established prior to relocation.
• VK v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2019] IECA 232 and Dar v Minister for Justice and Equality [2021] IECA 339: Confirmed the requirement of pre-existing dependency in accordance with EU law.

The appellant attempted to distinguish her case from these precedents, particularly arguing that the Reyes decision did not directly address her situation under Article 2(2)(d) of the Directive. However, the Court found these distinctions unconvincing, affirming that Reyes provides clear guidance applicable to her circumstances.

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the proper interpretation of dependency under the Citizenship Directive. The key points include:

• Dependency Assessment: Dependency must exist in the home country (Romania) at the time of application to reside in the host country (Ireland).
• Directive Interpretation: The Court emphasized that the Directive requires a broad interpretation, focusing on the factual situation of dependency rather than future possibilities of independence.
• Consistency with CJEU Jurisprudence: The decision adhered strictly to established CJEU interpretations, leaving little room for alternative interpretations proposed by the appellant.
• Legislative Intent: The Directive aims to facilitate the free movement of EU citizens and their dependent family members, ensuring that only those genuinely dependent and in need reside in the host State.

Additionally, the Court addressed procedural aspects regarding the appellant's late appeal and the failure to establish a justifiable reason for the delay, ultimately dismissing the request for an extension of time.

The judgment reaffirms the necessity for a pre-existing dependency in the home country for family members seeking to reside in another EU Member State under the free movement framework. This has several implications:

• Clarity in Dependency Criteria: Provides clear guidance that dependency must originate in the home country, preventing strategic relocations to meet dependency requirements.
• Consistency in Jurisprudence: Strengthens the alignment between national courts and CJEU interpretations, ensuring uniform application of EU free movement laws.
• Future Applications: Individuals seeking residency based on family ties must substantiate dependency in their home country, potentially affecting many non-EU family members relying on EU citizens for residency rights.
• Policy Considerations: May influence future legislative reviews or amendments regarding social welfare benefits eligibility and residency rights linked to dependency.