Posts

Er worden posts getoond met het label Citizens Directive

Britse rechter: voor de Belgie-route moet je er wel echt gewoond hebben en niet alleen een pasje kunnen laten zien

Afbeelding
Dat pasje kan je gebruiken om werkelijk verblijf aan te tonen maar er moet wel echt daar verbleven zijn voor langder dan drie maanden.   Alexander Schymyck writes: Surinder Singh route still requires genuine residence abroad The Court of Appeal has confirmed that in order to benefit from the Surinder Singh principle, the family involved must have genuinely resided in another EU country and have created or fortified their family life there. In Kaur and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 98 it rejected the argument that, as a result of the Court of Justice decision in C-202/13 McCarthy No.2, anyone with a residence card from another member state is entitled to have their family come and live with them in the United Kingdom. The facts of this case are not attractive. Mr Singh and Mrs Kaur had previously been married but divorced in 2004. The following year Mr Singh married a Polish national, obtained residence rights in the UK and bec...

UItzetten van EU onderdanen / Richtlijn 2004/38

Afbeelding
Upper Tribunal Clarifies Case C-400/12 MG Posted on September 9, 2014 by mkp MG (prison-Article 28(3)(a) of Citizens Directive) Portugal [2014] UKUT 392 (IAC) This famous case – referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Upper Tribunal (UT) at [2012] UKUT 268 (IAC) – about the citizens’ Directive returned to the UT to be decided in light of the CJEU’s decisions in Case C-400/12, SSHD v MG ECLI:EU:C:2014:9 (see here ) and Case C-387/12, Onuekwere v SSHD ECLI:EU:C:2014:13 (see here ). The tribunal judges explained that that “the issue of deportation of foreign criminals is of compelling public importance.” But, after taking account of the further evidence that came to light in this case, the UT concluded that MG was entitled to succeed in her appeal even on the basis of the lowest or “baseline” level of protection. So, in deciding MG’s case, the UT did not need to dwell on the parties’ submissions on th...