UK Court of Appeal emphasises that the former spouse of an EEA national must be “exercising treaty rights” at the date of the divorce

Just when we thought we had seen the back of the  2006 EEA Regulations, it appears that  the Court of Appeal is  not  quite yet  done with their interpretation: the  Court  of Appeal is  still having to  grapple  with arguments put forward  that  the UK Government did not  correctly  implement the parent Citizen’s Directive via the 2006 Regulations.
In Ahmed v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 99, the  issue which arose was the correct interpretation of Regulation 10(5) and 10(6) of  the  2006 EEA Regulations.
Mr Ahmed sought to establish  an independent right to reside  in the UK as the former spouse of an EU national. He applied for an EEA residence card in January 2014. He  only received a certificate of application in September 2014.  At  the date of the divorce, which became absolute on 19 June 2014, Mr Ahmed’s wife had been working in the UK and  the marriage lasted for at least three years.
The Secretary of State refused to issue him with an EEA residence card. Upon appeal, the Upper Tribunal found that Mr Ahmed only became a worker on 6 October 2014 and that he was not a worker at the date of his divorce. Thus, it held, he had failed to satisfy Regulation 10(6).
The appeal then came before the Court of Appeal.
It was argued on behalf of Mr Ahmed that Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38 which Regulation 10 is designed to implement, does not require him to have been a worker on 19 June 2014 and so Regulation 10(6) cannot be read as having that effect. A  purposive interpretation of the Directive was put forward, ie, that the requirements of Article 13 should be interpreted in line with Recital (15) of the Directive, which states that one of the objects of the Directive is to protect the derived rights of family members of EU nationals if, for example, there is a divorce. On that basis it was argued that  the Regulations could not, compatibly with EU law, require Mr Ahmed to be a worker at the date of his decree absolute. It was  contended that the  second subparagraph of Article 13(2)  was  addressing the situation where a non-EU national is applying for permanent residence, not the present situation where he is applying simply for a retained right to reside following divorce.
Alternatively, it was  contended  that the Home Office prevented Mr Ahmed  from being a worker at any earlier date than October 2014 by its delay in sending him a Certificate of Application, stating he had applied for an EEA residence card.

Continue/ lees verder: https://ukimmigrationjusticewatch.com/2017/03/07/court-of-appeal-emphasises-that-the-former-spouse-of-an-eea-national-must-be-exercising-treaty-rights-at-the-date-of-the-divorce/






Wellicht is mijn boekenblog ook interessant: http://dutchysbookreviews.blogspot.nl/l

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.


Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email