free movement - useful references

8/10/2019 Free movement - useful references

1/7

Below are references to some case law and other official documentation which could prove useful to those interested in exercising free movement rights.

There are sometimes inconsistencies between judgments where the more recent judgment could trump an earlier one, or provide clarification. However relianceon case law should not be blind as it is not necessarily all that is needed to establish rights. t may not be appropriate for your situation and showing off how

much more you !now than the casewor!er by "#ing on case law references is li!ely to piss them off. $ride is a strange thing%

&urthermore, Home "ffice is notoriously slow in updating its regulations to reflect recent court decisions it is not happy with. t is also not un!nown for Home"ffice to adopt the most restrictive interpretation where possible, leaving it to another case years down the line, to shed clarity or hold it accountable.

'oted below is the !ey message as understand it. (in!s are provided so readers can form their own opinions and as always, when in any doubt, you are strongly

advised to see! specialist immigration advice.

Date of

judgmentReference Key message Relevant links

) *ul+-

/0)1213urinder 3ingh

4uled that having exercised free movement rights to wor! in another 5ember 3tate, the 67 citi8enon his2her return to the 5ember 3tate of which s2he is a national has the right to his2her spouse to

enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted were the family to move to another 5ember 3tate.

6.g. 9 British man moves to &rance for wor! and lives there with his wife. He wants to move bac! tothe 7:. 7: cannot impose more restrictions on this couple than say ;ermany or reland would.22www.bailii.org2eu2cases2676*2+-20)11.html

http>22www.freemovement.org.u!2suri

nder/singh/immigration/route2

http>22www.freemovement.org.u!2do

wnloads2surinder/singh/eu/free/movement/for/british/citi8ens2

01 5ay

++

/?@2@

ommission of6uropean

ommunities v

'etherlands.

5ember states cannot reAuire that 67 nationals state purpose and duration of stay and financial

means available for it.

where a Member State requires nationals of another Member State to answer questions

concerning the purpose and duration of their stay and the financial means at their disposal for itbefore being permitted to enter its territory, it is in breach of its obligations under Directive 68!6"

on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the #ommunity for wor$ers ofMember States and their families and Directive %!&'8 on the abolition of restrictions on movement

and residence within the #ommunity for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment

and the provision of services()

http>22www.bailii.org2eu2cases2676*

2++2?@@.html

-0 3ep-110

/+121+9!rich

5otive for exercise of free movement to see! employment in another 5ember 3tate irrelevant, aslong as wor! is genuine and effective. i.e. embar!ing on free movement with the express purpose of

using the 3urinder 3inghC route is not considered to be an attempt to circumvent domestic law nor is

http>22www.bailii.org2cgi/bin2mar!up.cgiD

docE2eu2cases2676*2-1102+11+.

+
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1992/C37090.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1992/C37090.htmlhttp://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/surinder-singh-eu-free-movement-for-british-citizens/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/surinder-singh-eu-free-movement-for-british-citizens/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/surinder-singh-eu-free-movement-for-british-citizens/http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1991/C6889.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1991/C6889.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C10901.html&query=akrich&method=booleanhttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C10901.html&query=akrich&method=booleanhttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C10901.html&query=akrich&method=booleanhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1992/C37090.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1992/C37090.htmlhttp://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/surinder-singh-eu-free-movement-for-british-citizens/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/surinder-singh-eu-free-movement-for-british-citizens/http://www.freemovement.org.uk/downloads/surinder-singh-eu-free-movement-for-british-citizens/http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1991/C6889.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1991/C6889.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C10901.html&query=akrich&method=booleanhttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C10901.html&query=akrich&method=boolean


2/7

it an abuse F as long as the exercise of free movement is genuine.

ourt noted 5rs 9!rich indicated she had heard about the 3urinder 3ingh route whereby she and her

husband could stay for six months in another member state and then return to the 7:, as per infogiven to her by solicitors and others in the same situation. The ourt found that this did not

constitute an abuse of rights.

*++ -s regards the question of abuse mentioned at paragraph .' of the Singh /udgment, cited above,

it should be mentioned that the motives which may have prompted a wor$er of a Member State tosee$ employment in another Member State are of no account as regards his right to enter and reside

in the territory of the latter State provided that he there pursues or wishes to pursue an effective andgenuine activity 0#ase +!8& 1evin *&28. 3#4 &"!+, paragraph .!5(

*+6 or are such motives relevant in assessing the legal situation of the couple at the time of theirreturn to the Member State of which the wor$er is a national( Such conduct cannot constitute an

abuse within the meaning of paragraph .' of the Singh /udgment even if the spouse did not, at thetime when the couple installed itself in another Member State, have a right to remain in the Member

State of which the wor$er is a national(

htmlGAueryEa!richGmethodEboolea

n

- *uly-11@

/+-)21@5etoc!

There can be no prior lawful residence condition in another 5ember 3tate imposed on the non/669family members of 67 nationals exercising free movement rights. reation of the family

relationship


3/7

family life. 5oving to another 67 country in orderto create or strengthen family life does not

constitute abuse.

The judges ruled that the conditions for granting right of residence to a non/669 family member in

the 67 citi8ens country of nationality should not in principle be more strict than that for a familymember of an 67 citi8en exercising treaty rights in an 67 member state other than that of which s2he

is a national.

GdoclangE6'GmodeElstGdirEGocc

EfirstGpartE+GcidE@?1

http>22www.freemovement.org.u!2surinder/singh/immigration/route2

+J #ec+

/JJJ205egner

/02@+ (evin

This relates to the case where the plaintiffs wor!ed a max of +1 hours a wee!, receiving less than+2)thof the average monthly salary.

f wor!erKs earnings do not cover all his needs this does not prevent him from being considered awor!er. f employment yields income lower than minimum reAuired for subsistence


4/7

citi8en. Ihether or not the family member had the right to reside in the 67 citi8ens country of

nationality before the initial exercise of free movement has no bearing.

*!+ - national of a Member State could be deterred from leaving that Member State in order to

pursue gainful employment in the territory of another Member State if he does not have the certaintyof being able to return to his Member State of origin, irrespective of whether he is going to engage in

economic activity in the latter State(

*!6 7hat deterrent effect would also derive simply from the prospect, for that same national, of not

being able, on returning to his Member State of origin, to continue living together with closerelatives, a way of life which may have come into being in the host Member State as a result of

marriage or family reunification(

- *ul-11-

/J2549O

n the absence of a valid # card or passport, a third country national cannot be refused entry wherethey can prove their identity and conjugal ties with an 67 national, and the authorities cannot

evidence a refusal on public policy2security2health grounds.

3uch applicants cannot be refused the issuance of a residence permit on the sole ground that they

entered the country unlawfully, or that their visa expired before the issue of said permit F although

unlawful entry could lead to proportionate sanctions e.g. monetary fine.

http>22eur/lex.europa.eu2(ex7ri3erv2(ex7ri3er

v.doD

uriE6(6O>?+*1J>6'>HT5(

+@ *un

+@)

ase 0+?2@

(ebon

Benefits should not affect status of dependencyS this came about in relation to a claim for minimex

22u!visaandimmigrationforum.fi

les.wordpress.com2-1+J2+12!amila/

J
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1987/R31685.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1987/R31685.htmlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttps://ukvisaandimmigrationforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/kamila-santos-campelo-cain.pdfhttps://ukvisaandimmigrationforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/kamila-santos-campelo-cain.pdfhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0459:EN:HTMLhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1987/R31685.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1987/R31685.htmlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:4578a163-59aa-419a-87af-430cb63c8fbd.0002.03/DOC_1&format=PDFhttps://ukvisaandimmigrationforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/kamila-santos-campelo-cain.pdfhttps://ukvisaandimmigrationforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/kamila-santos-campelo-cain.pdf


5/7

members.

notwithstanding that Surinder Singh concerns family members as defined by the Directive, wecannot see any distinction in principle between *it and the case of the appellant before us( n our

/udgement, the e9ercise of the right of free movement by an 33- national is as li$ely to beadversely affected by the inability of a durable partner to reside with the 33- national in the host

State, as it would be were his or her spouse to be denied residence status( we do consider that theSurinder Singh principle does e9tend to persons such as the appellant who are in a durablerelationship

santos/campelo/cain.pdf

http>22u!/immigration/blog.com2-1+J2+12-+2judges/thwart/

u!/governments/attempts/to/ma!e/british/second/class/citi8ens/surinder/

singh/applied/to/extended/family2

+J #ec

-11

02-1121+-

$edro

ase of a $ortugese national living with her son in the 7:S mostly financially dependent on him,

whose claim for 3tate $ension redit was refused.

ourt ruled she was entitled to $ension redit irrespective of whether the applicant was dependent onher son in the country of origin and that the point the dependency arose did not matter, as long as

there is actual dependency.

http>22www.bailii.org2ew2cases26I

[email protected]

+ "ct

-11J

/-1121-

hen

9 minor 67 citi8en exercising free movement rights has the right to reside in another 5ember 3tate

for an indefinite period, with his2her non/67 primary carer, if the minor has appropriate sic!ness

insurance and the primary carer has sufficient resources for the minor not to become a burden onpublic finances. This is in accordance with 9rticle +@ and #irective 120?-. These provisions extendthe right to reside with the child, to the primary carer as well.

http>22www.bailii.org2eu2cases2676*

2-11J2-111-.html

- *uly

-11

ommissions

guidance"5y the same to$en, #ommunity lawprotects 3< citi=ens who return home after having e9ercised their free movement rights(

7herefore residence in e9cess of three months constitute genuine residence and therefore achieves the

purpose of the 3< rules on free movement( f the purpose of the 3< rules is achieved then there is no

need to loo$ into the motives that motivated you to move to another 3< country()

http>22eur/

lex.europa.eu2(ex7ri3erv2(ex7ri3erv.doD

uriE"5>-11>10+0>&'>6'>$#&

4egulation

+?+-2?@

9rticle + F free movement for purposes of employment for 669 national

9rticle -, 0 F no discrimination towards 669 nationals in employment 22eur/lex.europa.eu2legal/

content26'2TOT2HT5(2D

uriE6(6O>0+?@4+?+-GfromE6'
https://ukvisaandimmigrationforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/kamila-santos-campelo-cain.pdfhttp://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1358.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1358.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C20002.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C20002.htmlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31968R1612&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31968R1612&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31968R1612&from=ENhttps://ukvisaandimmigrationforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/kamila-santos-campelo-cain.pdfhttp://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://uk-immigration-blog.com/2014/10/21/judges-thwart-uk-governments-attempts-to-make-british-second-class-citizens-surinder-singh-applied-to-extended-family/http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1358.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1358.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C20002.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C20002.htmlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0313:FIN:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31968R1612&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31968R1612&from=ENhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31968R1612&from=EN


6/7

treated the same as domestic citi8ens.

9rticle F 669 nationals to be afforded the same access to employment assistance as domestic

citi8ens9rticle ? F ocational tests permitted where specified in employment offer but they cant be

expressly applied on discriminatory grounds.9rticle ) F 669 wor!ers entitled to same conditions of employment, social and tax advantages as

locals including access to training and vocational schools.9rticle @ F 669 nationals eAual treatment as regards to membership of trade unionsS specifiesconditions on management roles.

9rticle F 669 nationals same access to housing benefits and rights as domestic citi8ens.9rticle +1 F family members covered by free movement

.......

- 9pr-11J

#irective-11J20@26

http>22www.encle.org2membership/directories2mdir

Wou may also contact a local law centre

http>22www.lawcentres.org.u!2

Where a solicitor or barrister is instructed, readers are advised to ensure they specialise in EU immigration hich is very different to UK immigration!

?
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/http://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/http://www.lawworks.org.uk/list-of-lawworks-member-clinicshttp://www.lawworks.org.uk/list-of-lawworks-member-clinicshttp://www.encle.org/membership-directories/mdirhttp://www.encle.org/membership-directories/mdirhttp://www.lawcentres.org.uk/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDFhttp://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/http://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/http://www.lawworks.org.uk/list-of-lawworks-member-clinicshttp://www.encle.org/membership-directories/mdirhttp://www.lawcentres.org.uk/


7/7

The mmigration (aw $ractitioners 9ssociation is an association of immigration specialists, many of which are solicitors but some of their member organisations include (awentres that provide free advice.

http>22www.ilpa.org.u!2directory2webdirect.html

Wou can search for solicitors on the (aw 3ociety s website F enter your postcode and select immigration law from the area of practice drop/down menu>

http>22solicitors.lawsociety.org.u!2D$roETrue

.

)
http://www.ilpa.org.uk/directory/webdirect.htmlhttp://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/?Pro=Truehttp://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/?Pro=Truehttp://www.ilpa.org.uk/directory/webdirect.htmlhttp://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/?Pro=True

free movement - useful references

Documents