Man jailed for breaching terror order – BBC News
‘A man has been sentenced to 15 months in prison after he breached the terms of the terror prevention measures placed upon him by the home secretary.’
BBC News, 16th April 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: freedom of movement
S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G – WLR Daily
‘A member state was entitled, pursuant to Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, to refuse to grant a right of residence to a third country national who was a family member of a Union citizen where that citizen was a national of and resided in that member state but regularly travelled to another member state in the course of his professional activities. However, article 45FEU of the FEU Treaty conferred on a third country national who was the family member of a Union citizen a derived right of residence in the member state of which that citizen was a national, where the citizen resided in that member state but regularly travelled to another member state as a worker within the meaning of that provision, if the refusal to grant such a right of residence discouraged the worker from effectively exercising his rights under article 45FEU, which was for the referring court to determine.’
WLR Daiily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B – WLR Daily
‘Article 21(1)FEU of the FEU Treaty meant that where a Union citizen had created or strengthened a family life with a third country national during genuine residence, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in articles 7(1) and (2) and article 16(1) and (2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC in a member state other than that of which he was a national, the provisions of the Directive applied by analogy where that Union citizen returned, with the family member in question, to his member state of origin.’
WLR Daily, 12th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ex-miner “deprived of his liberty” when prevented from dying at home – Local Government Lawyer
‘A 77-year-old former miner was deprived of his liberty – without proper account of the law being taken – when he was prevented from going home to die beside his brother, a joint report from two Ombudsmen has found.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
EU uncertainty – the impact on EU migrants in the UK – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
‘Recently I have seen an increase in EU nationals enquiring about becoming British. I always ask the client why they feel the need (given the extensive rights that EU law secures) to move between EU states. The invariable answer is a fear that Britain will leave the EU.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 12th February 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
ZZ (France) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) – WLR Daily
ZZ (France) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 7; [2014] WLR (D) 26
‘Where the state authority refused to permit a citizen of the European Union admission to the United Kingdom on grounds of public security, the national court had to ensure, as a minimum requirement, that he was informed of the essence of the grounds of the decision. While the manner in which that was done had to take due account of the necessary confidentiality of the related evidence against him, the need to protect such confidentiality was not capable of justifying non-disclosure of the essence of the grounds.’
WLR Daily, 24th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Missing terrorist suspect appeals against movement restriction – The Guardian
‘A terrorist suspect who went missing after changing into a burka at a mosque has begun an appeal against measures taken against him to protect the public.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG – WLR Daily
Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG (Case C-400/12); [2014] WLR (D) 4
‘The ten-year period of residence in article 28(3)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states (OJ 2004 L158, p 77) had to be continuous and calculated by counting back from the date of the decision ordering the expulsion of the person concerned. A period of imprisonment was, in principle, capable both of interrupting the continuity of the period of residence for the purposes of that provision and of affecting the decision regarding the grant of the enhanced protection provided for thereunder, even where the person concerned resided in the host member state for the ten years prior to imprisonment. However, the fact that that person resided in the host member state for the ten years prior to imprisonment could be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host member state had been broken.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-378/12); [2014] WLR (D) 7
‘Under article 16(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, periods of imprisonment in the host member state of a third-country national, who was a family member of a Union citizen who had acquired the right of permanent residence in that member state during those periods, could not be taken into consideration in the context of the acquisition by that national of the right of permanent residence for the purposes of that provision. The continuity of residence was interrupted by periods of imprisonment in the host member state of a third country national who was a family member of a Union citizen who had acquired the right of permanent residence in that member state during those periods for the purposes of article 16(2) and (3).’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Reyes v Migrationsverket – WLR Daily
Reyes v Migrationsverket (Case C-423/12); [2014] WLR (D) 6
‘Under article 2(2)(c) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states (OJ 2004 L158, p 77), a member state could not require a direct descendant who was 21 years old or older to have tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or to obtain subsistence support from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise to support himself in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a “family member”. The fact that a relative—due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health—was deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intended to start work in the member state did not affect the interpretation of “dependent”.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Prisoners ‘damn well shouldn’t’ be given right to vote, says David Cameron – The Guardian
‘Prisoners “damn well shouldn’t” be given the right to vote, David Cameron said as he called for the powers of European court of human rights to be restricted.’
The Guardian, 13th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Deprivation of Liberty: current approach leaves vulnerable clients with limited protection, writes Laura Davidson – No. 5 Chambers
‘In P and Q v Surrey County Council & Others [2011] EWCA Civ 190, the Court of Appeal approved Parker J’s suggested new “relative normality” test for assessing whether or not someone was being deprived of their liberty. If someone’s disabilities and difficulties necessitate assistance which is a significant interference in their life regardless of where they reside, then they are living a relatively normal life ‘for them’. Thus the circumstances are unlikely to amount to a deprivation. This concept purports to emanate from Engel v Netherlands (1976) 1 EHRR 647, despite its focus on the limitations of the army regime upon a soldier’s lifestyle, rather than a person’s individual characteristics (see ‘Turning back the clock’, SJ Vol. 156, No. 22, 10-13).’
No. 5 Chambers, 9th December 2013
Source: www.no5.com
Oboh and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
‘Article 3(2(a) of the Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC did not give the right to the dependent relatives of an EU citizen in a member state to freely move and reside in another member state if the dependency on the EU citizen or membership of his or her household arose only after they had arrived in the member state.’
WLR Daily, 25th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Landmark Supreme Court cases on deprivations of liberty to start next week – Local Government Lawyer
“A panel of seven justices at the Supreme Court will next week hear two landmark cases on deprivations of liberty.”
Local Government Lawyer, 15th October 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
United Kingdom v Council of the European Union – WLR Daily
United Kingdom v Council of the European Union (Case C-431/11); [2013] WLR (D) 357
“By adopting Council Decision 2011/407/EU, on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (social security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement, the Council of the European Union had ensured that free movement of persons was exercisable within the EEA under the same social conditions as within the Union, thereby supporting the development of the association established by the EEA Agreement between the European Union and the EFTA states and the realisation of the objectives pursued by the Agreement.”
WLR Daily, 26th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Brey – WLR Daily
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Brey (Case C-140/12); [2013] WLR (D) 352
“European Union law—in particular, articles 7(1)(b), 8(4) and 24(1) and (2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states—precluded national legislation which, even in relation to the period following the first three months of residence, automatically barred the grant of a social security benefit to a national of another member state who was not economically active, on the grounds that, despite having been issued with a certificate of residence, he did not meet the necessary requirements for obtaining the legal right to reside on the territory of the first member state for a period of longer than three months, since obtaining that right of residence was conditional upon that national having sufficient resources not to apply for the benefit.”
WLR Daily, 19th September 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions – WLR Daily
Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWHC 2573 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 341
“The provisions in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 conferring powers to stop, question, and detain a person at a port or border for up to nine hours for the purpose of determining whether he appeared to be a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism were not incompatible with article 5, 6 or 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; or with the right to freedom of movement under articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
WLR Daily, 28th August 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v Commission communautaire commune de Bruxelles-Capitale – WLR Daily
“On the proper interpretation of article 2(2)(f) of Parliament and Council Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, the exclusion of healthcare services from the scope of the Directive covered any activity intended to assess, maintain or restore the state of health of patients, where that activity was carried out by healthcare professionals recognised as such by the member state concerned, regardless of the ways in which the facilities in which that care was provided were organised and financed or whether they were public or private. On the proper interpretation of article 2(2)(j) the exclusion of social services from the scope of that Directive included any activity relating, inter alia, to the care and assistance of elderly persons, where that activity was carried out by a private service provider which has been mandated by the state by means of an act conferring, in a clear and transparent manner, a genuine obligation to provide such services under specific conditions.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
RM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily
RM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2013] EWCA Civ 775; [2013] WLR (D) 259
“On a true construction of article 17(3) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, the Zimbabwean widow of a Spanish national had acquired the right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom on the ground that her late husband had, before the date of their marriage, ‘acquired himself the right of permanent residence … on the basis of paragraph 1’ of article 17, viz having retired from work due to permanent incapacity. It was not a requirement that a family member seeking to rely on such a right had to be a family member prior to, or as at the date of, the European Union member’s own acquisition of permanent residence on which reliance was now placed.”
WLR Daily, 28th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
European Court of Justice grapples with secret evidence in UK immigration case – UK Human Rights Blog
“The European Court of Justice has, in recent days, handed down a judgment that hits several hot buttons: UK immigration law, EU human rights, secret evidence, and suspicions of terrorism. In ZZ the Court has had to rule on the use of secret evidence before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 14th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
