Steve Peers
It’s been well over twenty years
since the CJEU established, in the case of Francovich,
that individuals could sue Member States in damages for breach of EU law. Yet many
of the cases concerned have been brought by businesses for lost profit. The
CJEU has never had the opportunity to apply the principles relating to damages
claims in a case concerning the free movement of EU citizens.
But in its recent judgment in Ogieriakhi, the Irish High Court delivered
a ruling on this issue, awarding over €100,000 to the family member of an EU
citizen for breach of EU free movement law. This judgment isn’t
a precedent as such outside Ireland, but it
is a useful indication of how such claims might be made. So I suggest
below how it might be particularly relevant to some of the UK's current
breaches of EU free movement law.
(......)
What are its broader
implications? Let’s examine them by applying this case to two other EU free
movement issues: the position of EU citizens who move to another Member State
to be with their family members, and then seek to return to their own Member
State with their family; and the position of those who wish to visit the UK with
their third-country national family members, without obtaining a visa.
For the first category of people (often
known as Surinder Singh cases), the
CJEU clarified last spring (as discussed here) that in principle it should
be sufficient for them to spend three months in another Member State exercising
free movement rights with their family members. Then they could return to their home state.
The CJEU judgment concerned a Dutch case, and I don’t know what the consequences
have been in the Netherlands. But the UK government has continued to apply a ‘centre
of life’ test that seems to be clearly more restrictive than the test in the Court’s
judgment.
For the second category of cases,
the CJEU ruled in December in McCarthy
(discussed here) that the family members should not have to obtain a
visa, if they had a residence card in their country of origin issued to family
members of EU citizens. This was a UK reference, but the UK courts have not followed
it up yet. Nor has the UK government changed its practice, as far as I know.
So let’s apply the EU damages
principles to these two breaches of EU law. In the first case, the right to
return to the UK is based on the Treaty rules on free movement of people, which
clearly aim to confer rights on individuals. Any delay in returning to the UK
with family members is in principle caused by the UK’s wrongful application of
EU law, although there might be other reasons in individual cases why people
delayed their return (finding work back in the UK, finishing school years, and
so on). As for the ‘sufficiently serious’ requirement, it is clearly met since
the Court’s ruling last year, but it harder to argue that it applied before
that date, due to the lack of legislation on this issue and the lack of clarity
before the Court’s judgment. The calculation of damages due to the UK’s breach
of EU law will depend on each case, and it might be harder in many cases to
show losses as compared to the Ogieriakhi
judgment, where the total absence of work was solely attributable to
breach of EU law, and the resulting damages were fairly easy to
calculate.
In the second case, the right to
visit the UK without a visa is clearly a rule intending to confer rights on
individuals. Any costs incurred to get a visa (mainly travel to a consulate)
are clearly directly attributable to the breach of EU law by the UK. The breach
of EU law is sufficiently serious since the McCarthy
judgment, but in this case it is arguably sufficiently serious beforehand. It
is blatantly obvious from the wording of the citizens’ Directive that
third-country national family members with a residence card do not need a visa,
and there is no provision in the Directive for the UK practice of requiring a
family permit as a separate requirement for a visa exemption. Equally it was clear
from prior CJEU case law that the concept of ‘abuse of rights’ could only apply
in individual cases.
As always on this blog, the suggestions above do not constitute legal advice, and anyone considering legal action should consult a lawyer (unless they are sure that they can represent themselves as well as Mr. Ogieriakhi did). I don’t practice law, so this isn’t an attempt to drum up work for myself. Rather my concern is not only for the individuals who ought to be compensated for the losses caused by the illegal actions of the UK, but also for the broader principle of the rule of law. It simply is not acceptable for the UK government to flout its legal obligations as long as it has, and the more legal proceedings aiming to pressure it to comply with those obligations, the better.
Lees hier verder op zijn weblog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/damages-for-breach-of-eu-free-movement.html
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten