A2 workers and the right to reside in Ireland Genov and Gusa v Minister for Social Protection
|
|
- Corey Grant
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins July, 2013 A2 workers and the right to reside in Ireland Genov and Gusa v Minister for Social Protection Mel Cousins Available at:
2 A2 workers and the right to reside in Ireland Genov and Gusa v Minister for Social Protection 1 This case involves a judicial review case in the High Court of a refusal of jobseeker s allowance to two formerly self-employed persons (one Romanian, one Bulgarian) on the basis that they did not have a right to reside in Ireland (as required by the relevant provisions of the Social Welfare Acts). The case raises some similar issues to those raised in the recent Solovastru ruling, in particular, whether or not formerly self-employed workers retain a right to reside under EU law once their self-employment ceases. 2 It was also argued that if the two workers did not have a right to reside, to deny them access to social assistance would be incompatible with EU law, an argument rejected by the High Court. Unfortunately, the most obvious similarity between this case and Solovastru is the very limited understanding of social welfare and EU law issues displayed by the respective judges. 3 Background Unlike the position with the 2004 accession when Ireland allowed open access to its labour force for nationals of the new member states, in 2007 Ireland allowed only limited access to its labour market for Romanian and Bulgarian (A2) nationals. 4 In effect this meant that A2 nationals were still required to obtain a work permit in order to take up employment (as an employee). However, there was no restriction on the right of such nationals to establish themselves in a self-employed capacity (under Article 49 EU, now 56 TFEU). The restrictions on employment were dropped in July The two men who had formerly been self-employed in Ireland, became unemployed in late 2012 and claimed jobseeker s allowance (JA). Their claims were refused on the basis that they did not have a right to reside in Ireland. It appears that there was no appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office in this case. 6 It seems likely that this fact, combined with Mr. Justice Hedigan s failure to appreciate what facts were relevant, contributed to the very limited factual findings set out in the judgment. Hedigan J summarizes the facts in just over a page and it 1 Unreported, 11 July At the time of writing this case has yet to appear on the courts website and a neutral citation has not yet been allocated. 2 Solovastru v. Minister for Social Protection [2011] IEHC 532. This case is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court. For a commentary see G. Whyte and M. Cousins, Social Welfare Law 2011 in Annual Review of Irish Law 2011 (Round Hall, 2012). See also Hrisca v Minister for Social Protection, (High Court, unreported 16 February the judgement does not appear on the courts website and does not appear to have been assigned a neutral citation). 3 Mr. Justice Hedigan s 26 page judgement, after a short (and entirely inadequate) outline of the facts (see below) sets out a lengthy (and rather incoherent) account of the arguments made on both sides before a brief (4 page) engagement with the legal issues. The source of the incoherence is not apparent. 4 Annex 7 of the Act of Accession. 5 See 6 Arguably the judicial review application should have been rejected on the grounds that the applicants had not exhausted their remedies but the issue is not discussed by the court. In Hrisca v Minister for Social Protection, whihc invovled somewhat similar issues, White J (at p. 3) held that the applicants did not, in this case, have to exhaust other remedies including a right to appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office and held that judicial review was the more appropriate remedy given the complex issues of European law invovled in that case. It may be that Hedigan J. was adopting a similar approach.
3 seems that these are based on the applicants affidavits rather than being formal findings of fact. 7 Mr. Genov claimed that he had worked on a self-employed basis from January 2010 to September 2012 (2 years 9 months); Mr. Gusa from October 2008 to October 2012 (4 years). Unfortunately we know little if anything more about this employment. Even the area of work is unspecified. Did it amount to effective and genuine employment? 8 Was it carried out in compliance with legal requirements, such as income tax and VAT requirements? 9 The judge s failure to explore these issues means that we have a case where there are effectively no findings of relevant facts. The law In order to be entitled to jobseeker s allowance a person must be available for employment (or be deemed to be or exempted from being so available) and be genuinely seeking employment. 10 In addition, a person must be habitually resident in Ireland and, in order to show habitual residence, a person must have a right to reside in Ireland. 11 The instant claims were rejected on the basis that Messrs. Genov and Gusa did not have such a right under national or EU law. Did the applicants have a right to reside? As self-employed workers, the two men had a right to reside in Ireland under EU law. 12 An initial question might be whether, although now without actual work, the two men could still be considered to be self-employed (thereby retaining their right to reside). 13 It does not appear that this issue was argued and (while recalling the general absence of clear factual findings) all the indications in the judgment are that their self-employment had entirely ceased. 14 Therefore, their right to reside depended on whether self-employed workers retain such a right after ceasing their activity. Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC provides 3. a Union citizen who is no longer a worker or self-employed person shall retain the status of worker or self-employed person in the following circumstances: (a) he/she is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident; 7 The section is replete with he states and he claims. 8 Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR Mr. Genov stated that he registered as a self-employed person with the Revenue Commissioners. 10 Section 141(4) as substituted by SWPA 2009, s. 5. In Solovastru, the claim was rejected because Mr. Solovastru was (as the law then stood) unable to take up employment (as opposed to self-employment) without a work permit and he was, therefore, considered not to be available for work. However, these restrictions had been dropeed by the time the claims in this case were made. 11 Section 141(9). S. 246 (5) now states that a person who does not have a right to reside in the State shall not, for the purposes of [the] Act, be regarded as being habitually resident in the State. See generally M. Cousins, Social Security Law in Ireland, Kluwer, 2012, paras Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC. 13 See, for example, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AL [2010] UKUT See, for example, para 6.5.
4 (b) he/she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having been employed for more than one year and has registered as a job-seeker with the relevant employment office; (c) he/she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after completing a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year or after having become involuntarily unemployed during the first twelve months and has registered as a job-seeker with the relevant employment office. In this case, the status of worker shall be retained for no less than six months;.... The interpretation of this article had been considered in Tilianu a rather similar English case also involving a self-employed Romanian worker who had claimed social benefits. The English Court of Appeal concluded that the apparent and natural meaning of article 7(3)(b) and (c) involved a distinction between workers (employed persons) and self-employed and that, whereas article 7(3)(a) applied to both groups, the references to employment and involuntary unemployment in (b) and (c) meant that these applied only to workers and not the selfemployed. 15 The Court of Appeal also rejected the argument that a purposive interpretation should be adopted holding that there was nothing in the travaux preparatoires or the recitals to indicate that it was intended to alter previous law which treated employed and self-employed persons differently. 16 The EU directive is implemented in Ireland by the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 ( S.I. 656 of 2006) which provide in very similar terms that 6. (2) (a) Subject to Regulation 20, a Union citizen may reside in the State for a period longer than 3 months if he or she - (i) is in employment or is self-employed in the State, (c) Subject to Regulation 20, a person to whom subparagraph (a)(i) applies may remain in the State on cessation of the activity referred to in that subparagraph if - (i) he or she is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident, (ii) he or she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having been employed for more than one year and has registered as a job-seeker with a relevant office of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and FÁS, (iii) subject to subparagraph (d), he or she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after completing a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year or after having become involuntarily unemployed during the first year and has registered as a job-seeker with a relevant office of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and FÁS, or (d) In a case to which subparagraph (c)(iii) applies, the right to remain referred to in paragraph (c) shall expire 6 months after the cessation of the activity concerned unless the person concerned enters into employment within that period. 15 R (Tilianu) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] EWCA Civ 1397 at 22. See also the decision of the High Court: R (Tilianu) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] EWHC 213 (Admin) at At See also R (Tilianu) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] EWHC 213 (Admin) at 42 and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RK [2009] UKUT 209 (AAC) at 11.
5 In Solovastru, Dunne J adopted a similar interpretation to the Court of Appeal in Tilianu. She pointed out that there was a distinction in EU law between those in employment and the selfemployed. She agreed with the English High Court in Tilianu that it was not credible that a change in EU law to treat self-employed persons in the same way of employees would not have been flagged and that the wording of article 7 was not apt to cover self-employed persons. She felt that the wording of the Directive was quite clear and distinguished between the two groups. 17 This interpretation of Directive 2004/38 is plausible as a matter of statutory interpretation. However, although it has yet to consider article 7, the Court of Justice has taken a purposive approach to other articles of the same directive. For example, it has applied by analogy article 16(4) of the Directive which provides that once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the State for a period exceeding two consecutive years to a person who remained in the country but without a right to reside. 18 It would seem somewhat strange that an employed person should be allowed to retain his or her status as a worker (possibly indefinitively) whereas a self-employed worker would (on this interpretation) be left without any right of residence as soon as his or her actual selfemployment ceased. In the instant case, however, Hedigan J did not engage with the issues raised at all and in three lines simply stated that the judgment in Solovastru was determinative of the issue. 19 Is the right to reside test compatible with EU law? Assuming that the Court was correct to find that the two men did not have a right to reside, the question arises as to whether making access to social benefits conditional on having a right to reside is consistent with EU law on free movement of persons. The European Court of Justice has held that the habitual residence test simpliciter is compatible with EU law in so far as that requirement may be justified on the basis of objective considerations that are independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions. 20 However, it has yet to consider the right to reside test. The EU Commission has recently announced that it intends to refer infringement proceedings against the UK in relation to its right to reside test to the Court of Justice. 21 However, the UK Supreme Court in Patmalniece has held that, in the context of a means-rested state pension to a person who was never economically active in the UK, that the right to reside is compatible with EU law. 22 The Court accepted that the right to reside was likely to have a disproportionate impact 17 At pages She further stated that the status of involuntary unemployment was only capable of being applied to a person in paid employment and that the term could not be applicable to a person who was selfemployed. This is passing strange given that she had earlier quoted the views of an experienced Department of Social and Family Affairs official who stated I wish to emphasise that a person who has been self-employed is not disqualified, by virtue of that fact, from receipt of jobseekers allowance. 18 Case C-325/09, Dias [2011] ECR I Para 6.4. Rather strangely, however, this conclusion appears at the end of the discussion about whether the right to reside test is objectively justified (see below). White J. in Hrisca also followed the decision in Solovastru and declined to refer this issue to the Court of Justice as it was under appeal to the Supreme Court. The judge emphasised that unless for a good reason and certainly at an interim stage it would not be appropriate for the Court to take an alternative view (at p. 22). 20 Case C-138/02, Collins [2004] ECR I The meaning of the proviso ( insofar as... ) remains obscure. See Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, [2006] EWCA Civ IP/13/475, 30 May Contrary to the predictions of the respondents in the instant case (at p. 19). 22 Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2011] UKSC 11. See Mel Cousins, Case Analysis (2011) 18(3) JSSL
6 on non-nationals and, therefore, required objective justification. This necessitated that the rule be justified on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions. It concluded (by a 4-1 majority) that the test was objectively justified on the basis that it was legitimate for the UK to limit access to social assistance to those with a sufficiently close economic or social link to the country. More recently, in a case which does not appear to have been opened to Hedigan J (presumably it was not decided at the time of hearing), the Chief Social Security Commissioner in Northern Ireland (Commissioner Mullan) distinguished Patmalniece and held that, in the case of a woman who had worked continuously in Northern Ireland for 8 years, the right to reside test could not be objectively justified as she was economically and socially integrated into the national society. 23 In this case, if we were to assume that Messrs Genov and Gusa were in fact employed for between 2 years 9 months and 4 years in Ireland, the facts fall somewhere between the two cases. Clearly there is an argument that employment for these periods of time means that the two men were also economically and socially integrated into Irish society and that the arguments for justification accepted in Patmalniece do not apply. Hedigan J referred to Patmalniece and appears to accept that the right to reside has a disproportionate impact on non-nationals. However, he accepted that the State s argument that the test was objectively justified in the interests of preserving the resources of this State in funding its social welfare system. In a rather contradictory sentence, Hedigan J goes on to say that This is clearly a logical and reasonable rationale, is one that stands independently of nationality of the applicants herein because it applies to all citizens of Member States other than Ireland regardless of their nationality and seems proportionate to the legitimate aim of best using the resources of the State. 24 This appears to suggest that a provision which differentiates between national and all nonnationals is independent of nationality. This is, of course, not the legal position. EU law was not (and is not) primarily concerned to prevent member States from discriminating between nationals of other Member States but rather to prevent them discriminating against nationals of other Member States. The legal status of the right to reside test seems likely to be considered in the infringement proceedings being brought by the Commission against the EU and/or in a pending appeal by the UK authorities against the ruling of the NI Social Security Commissioner. The absence of clear findings of fact in this case makes it difficult to come to any definitive conclusions, other than the obvious fact that Hedigan J s analysis is somewhat inadequate. Despite his references to that case, he does not, in fact, follow Patmalniece but rather comes up with a different justification, i.e. preserving the resources of this State in funding its social welfare system. The Court of Justice has recognized that control of expenditure and finance sustainability of social security schemes are important state objectives. 25 However, the High Court did not (explicitly) consider the extent to which the right to reside test was related to this objective nor the proportionality of such a measure. 23 AS v Her Majesty s Revenue and Customs (CB) [2013] NICom Para See, for example, Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325.
7 It is difficult to argue with Commissioner Mullan s conclusions that a person in the position of the appellant in the Northern Ireland case (who has been in employment there since 2005) should be considered to be actually economically and socially integrated within the UK. Of course, the Court of Justice has on occasion allowed Member States to rely on a bright line approach, as in Förster. 26 However, that decision must be seen in its own particular context where it (albeit indirectly) questioned the legality of the EU Council s approach in this area. To the contrary, the right to reside rule is a purely national rule and a rigid application of this rule in all cases clearly has the potential to exclude even persons who are economically and social integrated into the Member State. However, where the Court of Justice will draw the line remains to be seen. In fact, there are perhaps three possible outcomes. First, the Court takes a bright line approach as in Förster and the test is objectively justified. Second, the test is not objectively justified, either because it is too closely bound up with nationality or, more likely, because it is not proportionate. Finally, I would think the most likely answer to come from the Court of Justice is that the right to reside test is not justified unless it is applied in a proportionate manner or to reverse this, the right to reside test is compatible with EU law if applied in a proportionate manner (as in Collins). Categorization of jobseekers allowance The lawyers for the applicants argued that jobseekers allowance should be categorized as social security under Regulation 883/2004 on social security for migrant workers. Although it is not very apparent from the judgment, 27 the point of this argument would appear to be that if so categorised, Ireland would be the competent state under Regulation 883 and the habitual residence clause (and the right to reside) would not apply. At present, jobseekers allowance is categorized as a special non-contributory benefit under Regulation 883. This means that it falls within the scope of the Regulation but such benefits are to be provided exclusively in the Member State in which the persons concerned reside, in accordance with its legislation and many of the general provisions of Regulation 883 do not apply. 28 The history of the classification of benefits under Regulation 883 (and its predecessor Regulation 1408/71) is too long to recount here and the Court of Justice has not shown much commitment to logic or principle in its approach to categorisation. 29 However, it is reasonably clear that a means-tested payment such as jobseekers allowance is correctly categorized as a special non-contributory benefit Case C-158/07, Förster [2008] ECR I In that case, the Court of Justice upheld a Dutch requirement of a five year residence requirement for non-nationals for entitlement to a maintenance grant even though economic and social integration could obviously be achieved in a shorter period (as in Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119). 27 Hedigan J states that he fails to see the significance of whether JA is social security or social assistance since in either case the applicants would be a financial burden on the state. 28 See articles 3 and 70 of Regulation See M. Cousins, 'Social security, social assistance, and "special non-contributory benefits": the never-ending story' European Journal of Social Security, Volume 9 (2007), No. 1, The Court of Justice has come to this conclusion in a series of social assistance-type payments from different countries: C-160/02, Skalka [2004] ECR I-5613; Case C-154/05 Kersbergen-Lap [2006] ECR I ; Case C-265/05 Perez Naranjo [2007] ECR I- I-347. The applicants argument that the Court of Justice had (in Cases C-22/08 and C- 23/08, Vatsouras and Koupatantze, [2009] ECR I-4585) ruled that a similar payment was not social assistance for the purposes of Directive 2004/38 is not relevant to the categorisation under Regulation 883/2004.
8 Conclusion Given the importance of the facts in this case and the absence of any clear findings of fact, it is not possible to say what the correct outcome of this case should have been. If one accepts that the applicants did not have a right to reside (as seems likely unless the Supreme Court or Court of Justice rejects the Tilianu line of authority), the key question was whether the right to reside rule was justified. But the consideration of this issue by the High Court is inadequate (especially given that this issue had been well-canvassed in Patmalniece). Given that such a rule is clearly likely to have a disparate impact on non-nationals, it must be objectively justified. But the Court s consideration of objective justification was very weak and there was effectively no consideration of proportionality. 31 This is not an easy issue and the UK courts continue to wrestle with it. 32 However, Hedigan J s approach is seriously flawed and should not be followed. The case unfortunately shows yet again the general inability of the Irish courts to deal in a competent manner with social welfare cases. In the period from January 2011 to July 2013 there have been eight High Court and one Circuit Court decisions directly involving social welfare issues. 33 Of these, three are so poor they would fail any appropriate standard (Solovastru, R.G. and the current judgment), 34 two (Jama and Brightwater - really an employment case as it involved the insurability of agency workers) might scrape a pass; 35 while Douglas is an extempore judgment which was correct as to the outcome but understandably did not need extended consideration of the law. 36 Hrisca involved a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice but, unlike Kelly, did not involve any detailed analysis of the law. 37 Only Neenan Travel (again really an employment case) 38 and Kelly (which is a preliminary reference to the ECJ) 39 are good judgements which show a clear understanding of the law. It is noteworthy that Kelly is the first Regulation 883 (formerly 1408/71) reference involving social welfare benefits in 40 years since we joined the (then) Common Market, although several such cases have been referred from Northern Ireland. 40 It is no coincidence that it was made by Hogan J. The purpose of judicial review is to correct errors below, while the right of appeal to the High Court from a decision of an appeals officer is intended to allow the High Court to provide some guidance on the correct interpretation of the law. However, it is currently the case that (with the possible exception of areas such as fair procedures or employment law) the High Court is more inclined to create error than correct it. Certainly the specialist social security adjudication system in the UK (now the Upper Tribunal in Great Britain, still known as the Social Security 31 See, in contrast, Burnip v Birmingham City Council [2012] EWCA Civ See M. Cousins Equal treatment and objective justification under the European Convention on Human Rights (2013) 20 (1) JSSL, These cases are reviewed in the social welfare chapters of the Annual Review of Irish Law. 34 R.G. v. Department of Social Protection (unreported judgment of Judge Lindsay, 5th July 2012). 35 Jama v. Minister for Social Protection [2011] IEHC 379; Brightwater Selection (Ireland) Ltd v. Minister for Social and Family Affairs [2011] IEHC Douglas v. Minister for Social Protection [2012] IEHC Unreported judgment of Mr. Justice White, 16 February It appears that the case was settled and no reference was actually made. 38 Neenan Travel Ltd. v. Minister for Social and Family Affairs [2011] IEHC Kelly v Minister for Social Protection [2013] IEHC Flood -v- Health Service Executive [2013] IEHC 192 (also a ruling by Hogan J.) which involves the right to health care appears to have been the first Regulation 883 reference on any type.
9 Commissioners in NI) does a much more competent job. Perhaps it is time to look to strengthen the capacity of the Social Welfare Appeals Office to deal with legal issues rather than seeking to bypass it.
A2 self-employed workers and social welfare rights - Solovastru v Minister for Social and Family Affairs
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins September, 2011 A2 self-employed workers and social welfare rights - Solovastru v Minister for Social and Family Affairs Mel Cousins,
More informationCivis europeus sum? Social assistance and the right to reside in EU law.
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2014 Civis europeus sum? Social assistance and the right to reside in EU law. Mel Cousins Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/74/
More informationSocial assistance and the right to reside at the European Court of Justice Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2015 Social assistance and the right to reside at the European Court of Justice Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig Mel Cousins Available at:
More informationHabitual residence: fact or (legal) fiction? Case C- C 255/13, I v. Health Service Executive
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2014 Habitual residence: fact or (legal) fiction? Case C- C 255/13, I v. Health Service Executive Mel Cousins Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/82/
More informationTribunals must apply EU Law (C 378/17)
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2018 Tribunals must apply EU Law (C 378/17) Mel Cousins Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/115/ Tribunals must apply
More informationGuide to the Habitual Residence Condition
FLACsheet Guide to the Habitual Residence Condition Since the Habitual Residence Condition was introduced in 2004, there have been a number of changes which have led to confusion among the public and the
More informationThe right to reside and entitlement to social welfare in the case of refugees and Zambrano carers
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2017 The right to reside and entitlement to social welfare in the case of refugees and Zambrano carers Mel Cousins Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/106/
More informationThe 'Right to Reside' and Social Security Entitlements
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2007 The 'Right to Reside' and Social Security Entitlements Mel Cousins, Glasgow Caledonian University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/35/
More informationFEANTSA Toolkit. Free Movement of EU citizens! and access to social assistance! Guidance for Homeless Service Providers
FEANTSA Toolkit Free Movement of EU citizens! and access to social assistance! Guidance for Homeless Service Providers The right to free movement between European Union (EU) Member States is one of the
More informationThe Rights of EEA National Victims of Trafficking in the UK
1. The aim of this paper and the training session it accompanies is to improve the ability of those in Scotland working with victims of human trafficking to assist and advocate on behalf of trafficking
More informationTABLE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC AND CURRENT EC LEGISLATION ON FREE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF UNION CITIZENS WITHIN THE EU
TABLE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC AND CURRENT EC LEGISLATION ON FREE MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE OF UNION CITIZENS WITHIN THE EU DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
More informationResidence) Amendment Regulations 2013 No See pp1559 of the Welfare Benefits and Tax Credits Handbook
The past presence, the future: changes to residence and presence rules Since April 2013, the Government has introduced a host of regulations amending the residence requirements for many social security
More informationInformation sheet for secondary advisers Permanent Residence
Information sheet for secondary advisers Permanent Residence 1. Purpose 1.1 This information note is designed for secondary advisers to EEA nationals 1 and their family members who wish to know whether
More informationFurther proposals to restrict migrants access to benefits
Further proposals to restrict migrants access to benefits Standard Note: SN07145 Last updated: 20 March 2015 Author: Section Steven Kennedy Social Policy Section Since the beginning of 2014 a number of
More informationDecisions and appeals in Irish social welfare law: recent case law
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins January 2, 2014 Decisions and appeals in Irish social welfare law: recent case law Mel Cousins Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/73/
More informationName of legal analyst: Oran Doyle Date Table completed: October 2008 Contact details:
Name of legal analyst: Oran Doyle Date Table completed: October 2008 Contact details: ojdoyle@tcd.ie Country: IRELAND Context This Table of Correspondence details the transposition in Ireland of Directive
More informationThe facts 4. The facts, as found by the First-tier Tribunal, supplemented with information provided in this appeal, are as follows.
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER Case No. CTC/1180/2009 1. This is an appeal by the Claimant, brought with my permission, against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal sitting at Southampton
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 21 February 2013 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 21 February 2013 (*) (Citizenship of the Union Freedom of movement for workers Principle of equal treatment Article 45(2) TFEU Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Article
More informationR. (on the application of Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2011 R. (on the application of Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Mel Cousins, Glasgow Caledonian
More informationSocial welfare appeals, appeal revisions and oral hearings
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2015 Social welfare appeals, appeal revisions and oral hearings Mel Cousins, Trinity College Dublin Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/85/
More informationSocial benefits for migrating EU citizens
Social benefits for migrating EU citizens Prof Herwig VERSCHUEREN University of Antwerp FEANTSA conference, Paris 19 June 2015 Ambiguity in EU s policy goals Free movement of EU citizens and the prohibition
More informationJudgment of the Court (Full Court) of 23 March Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 23 March 2004 Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Reference for a preliminary ruling: Social Security Commissioner - United Kingdom Freedom
More informationThe Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
IMMIGRATION (EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA) REGULATIONS 2006 SI 2006/003 2006 No. 003 IMMIGRATION The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 Made - - - - 30th March 2006 Laid before Parliament
More informationIn the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
In the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) R (on the application of Onowu) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (extension of time for appealing: principles) IJR [2016] UKUT
More informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2004L0038 EN 30.04.2004 000.003 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B C1 DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
More information3. The background facts to the case are that the claimant, a Polish national with one.
MRS EWA ZALEWSKA c/o Women's Aid 43 Tandragee Road PORTADOWN BT62 3BL Decision No: C6)05-06(IS) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIMSTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1998 INCOME
More informationMAH (dual nationality permanent residence) Canada [2010] UKUT 445 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) MAH (dual nationality permanent residence) Canada [2010] UKUT 445 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Belfast On 28 October 2010 Determination Promulgated
More informationBefore : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN LADY JUSTICE BLACK and LORD JUSTICE FLAUX Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 794 Case No: C3/2015/2886 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE AND APPEALS CHAMBER) Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 June 2014 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 June 2014 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Article 45 TFEU Directive 2004/38/EC Article 7 Worker Union citizen who gave up work because of the physical constraints
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43140/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Determination Promulgated On 17 th April 2015 On 27 th April 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationPembele (Paragraph 399(b)(i) valid leave meaning) [2013] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Pembele (Paragraph 399(b)(i) valid leave meaning) [2013] UKUT 00310 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at : Field House On : 18 April 2013 Determination Promulgated
More informationTravellers, equality and school admission: Christian Brothers High School Clonmel -v- Stokes
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins December, 2011 Travellers, equality and school admission: Christian Brothers High School Clonmel -v- Stokes Mel Cousins, Glasgow Caledonian
More informationcomposed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Ó Caoimh, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus and P. Lindh, Judges,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 4 June 2009 (*) (European citizenship Free movement of persons Articles 12 EC and 39 EC Directive 2004/38/EC Article 24(2) Assessment of validity Nationals of a Member
More informationJulia Smyth. Year of Call: Practice Areas. Civil Fraud EU Law Public Law. Attorney General Panel Appointed to B panel
T: +44 (0)20 7583 1315 E: clerks@tgchambers.com W: tgchambers.com/ https://tgchambers.com/member-profile/julia-smyth/ Julia Smyth Year of Call: 1996 Practice Areas Civil Fraud EU Law Public Law Attorney
More informationFree movement of EU citizens within the EU and equal treatment for social benefits: solidarity or benefit tourism?
Free movement of EU citizens within the EU and equal treatment for social benefits: solidarity or benefit tourism? prof Herwig VERSCHUEREN University of Antwerp (Belgium) 1 Overview Ambiguity in EU s policy
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 3 October 2013 (1) Case C-378/12. Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 3 October 2013 (1) Case C-378/12 Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration
More informationJUDGMENT. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Franco Vomero (Italy) (Respondent)
Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 49 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1199 JUDGMENT Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v Franco Vomero (Italy) (Respondent) before Lady Hale, Deputy President
More information1 P a g e. to the GPOW: the Genuine Prospect of Work Test - (1) as a cause of homelessness for EEA migrants. (2) arguments against the test
1 P a g e to the GPOW: the Genuine Prospect of Work Test - (1) as a cause of homelessness for EEA migrants (2) arguments against the test Martin Williams Welfare Rights Adviser April 2015 2 P a g e CONTENTS
More informationProf. dr. Herwig Verschueren University of Antwerp Berlin - 20 June Non-discrimination and social rights under Reg. 492/2011 and Dir.
Prof. dr. Herwig Verschueren University of Antwerp Berlin - 20 June 2011 Non-discrimination and social rights under Reg. 492/2011 and Dir. 2004/38 Overview Recent legislative developments Regulation1612/68
More informationJUDGMENT. Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty s Revenue and Customs (Respondent)
Easter Term [2016] UKSC 24 On appeals from: [2014] EWCA Civ 184 JUDGMENT Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP (Appellant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty s Revenue and Customs (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger,
More informationHuman Rights, Anti-Discrimination and Social Security Benefits: Recent UK Case Law
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins 2010 Human Rights, Anti-Discrimination and Social Security Benefits: Recent UK Case Law Mel Cousins, Glasgow Caledonian University
More informationThe Habitual Residence Test
The Habitual Residence Test Standard Note: SN/SP/416 Last updated: 18 May 2011 Author: Steven Kennedy Section Social Policy Section The Habitual Residence Test was introduced by the Conservative Government
More informationMigrant workers Social services duties to provide accommodation and other services
Law Centre (NI) Community Care Information Briefing No. 14 (Revised edition) August 2012 Migrant workers Social services duties to provide accommodation and other services At a glance It is likely that,
More information10 September ILPA Response to Consultation on Controlled Access to UK Labour Market for Romanians and Bulgarians
By email to: A2Enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Dear Sir/Madam, 10 September 2007 ILPA Response to Consultation on Controlled Access to UK Labour Market for Romanians and Bulgarians ILPA is a professional
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL SS & ors (Ankara Agreement no in-country right of appeal) Turkey [2006] UKAIT 00074 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 22 May and 28 June 2006 Notice sent: 29
More informationJUDGMENT. Patmalniece (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent)
Hilary Term [2011] UKSC 11 On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 621 JUDGMENT Patmalniece (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Rodger
More informationThe baseless fabric of this vision: EU Citizenship, the right to reside and EU law
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland From the SelectedWorks of Mel Cousins July, 2016 The baseless fabric of this vision: EU Citizenship, the right to reside and EU law Mel Cousins Available at: https://works.bepress.com/mel_cousins/100/
More informationPREFERENCE FOR A REFERENCE? Owain Thomas
1 PREFERENCE FOR A REFERENCE? Owain Thomas Introduction 1. The subject of this short talk will be the interrelationship between the test for whether a question should be referred to the Court of Justice
More informationIhemedu (OFMs meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00340(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE STOREY. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ihemedu (OFMs meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00340(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 16 May 2011 Determination Promulgated 17 August 2011 Before
More informationIntroduction... 1 The United Kingdom, Gibraltar and the ECT... 2 Gibraltar a Part of the European Union Territory?... 4 Conclusions...
SERIES OF NOTES ON THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY Note 9 21 April 2014 DOES THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY APPLY TO GIBRALTAR? Introduction... 1 The United Kingdom, Gibraltar and the ECT... 2 Gibraltar a Part of
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Wahl delivered on 12 December 2013 (1) Case C-507/12. Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Wahl delivered on 12 December 2013 (1) Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of
More informationTHE AIRE CENTRE Advice on Individual Rights in Europe
THE AIRE CENTRE Advice on Individual Rights in Europe Written Evidence of the AIRE Centre to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Violence against Women and Girls The AIRE Centre is a non-governmental
More informationNumber 28 of 2010 SOCIAL WELFARE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART 1 Preliminary and General
Number 28 of 2010 SOCIAL WELFARE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title, construction, collective citation and commencement. 2.
More informationLegal costs in environmental and planning litigation
Planning law update Bar Council CPD seminar 17 June 2013 Fintan Valentine BL Legal costs in environmental and planning litigation Section 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 The general rule under
More informationGLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW Antitrust Litigation Conference 2010
GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW Antitrust Litigation Conference 2010 London, October Counterfactuals a shift in the burden/standard of proof? Duncan Sinclair 1 1 Barrister at 39 Essex Street Chambers, M.A, LL.M
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH LORD JUSTICE LLOYD and LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 1606 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER) JUDGE EDWARD JACOBS GIA/2098/2010 Before: Case No:
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 5 October
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 5 October 2006 1 1. As part of the liberalisation of activities relating to recruitment, private-sector recruitment agencies are playing a growing role in
More informationRomanian Workers in the UK. Dr Simon Roberts FreSsco Bucharest, 5 June 2014
Romanian Workers in the UK Dr Simon Roberts FreSsco Bucharest, 5 June 2014 Introduction Talk looks at: Romanian workers in the UK labour market Entitlement to social security benefits in UK Enlargement
More informationWhat constitutes unreasonable burden for the social assistance system?
What constitutes unreasonable burden for the social assistance system? Relation between the residence directive and social security coordination regulations in the light of the CJEU case law Prof. dr.
More informationScheme for the Management of Controlled Schools
Scheme for the Management of Controlled Schools 1 EDUCATION AUTHORITY SCHEME FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CONTROLLED SCHOOLS ARRANGEMENT OF SCHEME PART CONTENT ARTICLE(S) PAGE(S) I. CITATION 1-2 5 II. INTERPRETATION
More informationTHE 2007 LAW ON THE RIGHT OF UNION CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO MOVE AND RESIDE FREELY IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC
THE 2007 LAW ON THE RIGHT OF UNION CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO MOVE AND RESIDE FREELY IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC ARTICLES CLASSIFICATION PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1. Concise Title
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
MG and VC (EEA Regulations 2006; conducive deportation) Ireland [2006] UKAIT 00053 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 23 May 2005 Before: Mr C M
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 21 June 2012 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 21 June 2012 * (Accession of new Member States Republic of Bulgaria Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals
More informationA. S. AND MICHELLE O GORMAN, ACTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM,
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] IEHC 17 THE HIGH COURT 2006 50 JR BETWEEN A. S. AND APPLICANT MICHELLE O GORMAN, ACTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND RESPONDENT THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY
More informationThe Free Movement of Persons
The Free Movement of Persons Workers (Art 45(1) TFEU) Self-employed (establishment)(art 49 TFEU) Free movement of persons One of the four freedoms envisaged in 1957 Central feature of the internal market
More information(1) The term the Commission of the European Communities ( 1 ) Position of the European Parliament of 18 April 2012 (not yet
L 149/4 Official Journal of the European Union 8.6.2012 REGULATION (EU) No 465/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 May 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination
More informationGuidance on Immigration Bail for Judges of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Tribunals Judiciary Judge Clements, President of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Presidential Guidance Note No 1 of 2018 Guidance on Immigration Bail for Judges of the First-tier
More informationRESTRICTED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY S GOVERNMENT CABINET MINISTERIAL WORKING GROUP ON ASYLUM AND MIGRATION
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY S GOVERNMENT AM(MWG)(05)1 21 September 2005 COPY NO CABINET MINISTERIAL WORKING GROUP ON ASYLUM AND MIGRATION FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS FROM NEW EU
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 14 January 2015 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 14 January 2015 (*) (Request for a preliminary ruling EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Social security for migrant workers Waiver of residence clauses Supplementary
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Saggio delivered on 13 April Ursula Elsen v Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte
Opinion of Advocate General Saggio delivered on 13 April 2000 Ursula Elsen v Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundessozialgericht Germany Social security for
More informationNeutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 442 Case No: C4/2008/1737; C4/2008/1809; C4/2008/3091
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 442 Case No: C4/2008/1737; C4/2008/1809; C4/2008/3091 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE,
More informationConformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for Estonia /52. Milieu Ltd & Europa Institute
1.1.1.1 Conformity Study for Estonia Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States This National
More informationBREXIT POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAW LITIGATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND. or How to Survive Without EU Law As We Know It
BREXIT POTENTIAL ISSUES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAW LITIGATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND or How to Survive Without EU Law As We Know It Law Society of Northern Ireland and Irish Centre for European Law Belfast,
More informationAswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Aswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 2 November 2011 Determination Promulgated
More informationBefore: LADY JUSTICE ARDEN LORD JUSTICE ELIAS and LORD JUSTICE BURNETT Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 49 Case Nos: C3/2013/0466 + B5/2014/0388 + B5/2013/2872 + C1/2014/0039 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM (1) The Upper Tribunal (Administrative
More informationNumber 7 of 1979 REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1979 REVISED. Updated to 22 June 2011
Number 7 of REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT REVISED Updated to 22 June 2011 This Revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its function
More informationPractical Tips for Possession: The View from the Housing Possession Duty Desk and Exceptional Funding under LASPO
Practical Tips for Possession: The View from the Housing Possession Duty Desk and Exceptional Funding under LASPO 23 May 2013 Exceptional Funding Under LASPO the housing law perspective Paper produced
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 25 September Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten
Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 25 September 2001 Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberster Gerichtshof Austria Social
More informationFURTHER EDUCATION RESIDENCY GUIDE. September 2013
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: HIGHER EDUCATION AND LEARNER SUPPORT DIVISION FURTHER EDUCATION RESIDENCY GUIDE September 2013 3 rd EDITION Contents Section 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Who is this guide for? 3 1.2 How to
More informationBefore : MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE Between : THE QUEEN on the application of. - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 3298 (Admin) Case No: CO/1440/2017, CO/2016/2017 & CO/2384/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Before : MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
More informationMH (effect of certification under s.94(2)) Bangladesh [2013] UKUT (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) MH (effect of certification under s.94(2)) Bangladesh [2013] UKUT 00379 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at North Shields On 24 April 2013 Determination
More informationSamir (FtT Permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 00003(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Samir (FtT Permission to appeal: time) [2013] UKUT 00003(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 12 September 2012 Before Determination Promulgated
More informationDo you want to work in another EU Member State? Find out about your rights!
Do you want to work in another EU Member State? Find out about your rights! European Commission Do you want to work in another EU Member State? Find out about your rights! European Commission Directorate-General
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE NICHOLS SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE SOUTHERN. Between YS YY. and
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal YS and YY (Paragraph 352D - British national sponsor former refugee) Ethiopia [2008] UKAIT 00093 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 16 September 2008 Before SENIOR
More informationIMMIGRATION AND SOCIAL SECURITY CO-ORDINATION (EU WITHDRAWAL) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES
IMMIGRATION AND SOCIAL SECURITY CO-ORDINATION (EU WITHDRAWAL) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal)
More informationWho is eligible for housing? By Amy Lush, 12 College Place
Who is eligible for housing? By Amy Lush, 12 College Place alush@12cp.co.uk 02380 320 320 Introduction Eligibility for housing allocation and housing assistance Non-EEA nationals EEA nationals Right to
More informationRecent Developments in EU Public Law. Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014
Recent Developments in EU Public Law Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014 Presentation overview 1. Application and Interpretation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights When
More information2006 No (N.I.17) NORTHERN IRELAND
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2006 No. 2953 (N.I.17) NORTHERN IRELAND The Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 Made - - - 14th November 2006 Coming into operation in accordance with Article 1(2)
More informationData Protection Act 1998
Data Protection Act 1998 1998 CHAPTER 29 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Part I Preliminary 1. Basic interpretative provisions. 2. Sensitive personal data. 3. The special purposes. 4. The data protection principles.
More informationEEA migrants rights, Roma rights and recent changes. Part 2. Practitioners training 16 th October 2014, Luton
EEA migrants rights, Roma rights and recent changes. Part 2 Practitioners training 16 th October 2014, Luton Mission: To promote awareness of European law rights and assist people in vulnerable circumstances
More informationJudgments Of the Supreme Court
Home Sitemap Printable Version Français Deutsch Contact Us Gaeilge Search Judgments by Year Advanced Search Latest Judgments Important Judgments Article 26 References Judgments Of the Supreme Court About
More informationJUDGMENT. R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant)
Easter Term [2014] UKSC 28 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 1362 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Fitzroy George) (Respondent) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 September 2003 *
AKRICH JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 September 2003 * In Case C-109/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More informationEUROPEAN UNION REFERENDUM BILL ECHR MEMORANDUM FOR THE BILL AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
EUROPEAN UNION REFERENDUM BILL ECHR MEMORANDUM FOR THE BILL AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 1. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the Minister in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament
More informationSaid (Article 1D: interpretation) [2012] UKUT 00413(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President Upper Tribunal Judge McGeachy
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Said (Article 1D: interpretation) [2012] UKUT 00413(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow On 8 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before Mr C M G
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 10 January 2006 *
JUDGMENT OF 10. 1. 2006 - CASE C-230/03 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 10 January 2006 * In Case C-230/03, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 1483 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/17339/2013 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date:
More informationARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party
ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party 02072/07/EN WP 141 Opinion 8/2007 on the level of protection of personal data in Jersey Adopted on 9 October 2007 This Working Party was set up under Article 29
More informationSecretariat. The European Parliament The members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Standing committee Secretariat of experts on international immigration, telephone 31 (30) 297 42 14/43 28 refugee and criminal law telefax 31 (30) 296 00 50 P.O. Box 201, 3500 AE Utrecht/The Netherlands
More informationResponse to the European Commission s consultation on EU Citizens Rights The Way Forward
Response to the European Commission s consultation on EU Citizens Rights The Way Forward 1. The AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) and ILPA (the Immigration Law Practitioners Association)
More information