Genuine Enjoyment

Last year in March, the European Court of Justice did something very creative in a case called Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi. It said that a father could not be thrown out of the EU because that would interfere with the "genuine enjoyment" by his son of his rights as an EU citizen. This is so because, if the father gets thrown out, the son would have to come along, thus robbing him of his right to participate in the fruits of the common market. Subsequently, there were two more cases, one about a husband and wife, and one where the EU citizens in question are family but not dependants. Now nobody really knows what these cases mean, or whether they will end up causing mayhem with the Member States' immigration policies. But what I've been wondering is whether it is possible to read between the lines by looking at the phrasing of the Court's answer in each case. See if you can guess which of these answers is the most positive for the immigrant (they're in random order):

1.Article 21 TFEU is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State, provided that the situation of that citizen does not include the application of measures by a Member State that would have the effect of depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen or of impeding the exercise of his right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States.

2. Article 20 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national (...), a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of [his EU citizen spouse or family], and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive [that EU citizen or citizens] of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.

3. European Union law and, in particular, its provisions on citizenship of the Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third country national to reside on its territory, where that third country national wishes to reside with [his EU citizen spouse or family] who is a citizen of the Union residing in the Member State of which he has nationality, who has never exercised his right to freedom of movement, provided that such refusal does not lead, for the Union [citizen or citizens] concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of [their] status as a citizen of the Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

Well? Who gets to stay? Immigrant 1? Immigrant 2? Immigrant 3? More than one? None of them? (This is also a nice game to play with all your (other) non-lawyer friends, just in case they think being a lawyer is hard. It's not hard, it just requires being able to read.)