- BY Colin Yeo
Home Office interpretation of EU case law
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
I just came across a new (to me, at any rate) Home Office policy document entitled European Economic Area (EEA) case law and appeals which sets out the Home Office interpretation of various key EU law cases including Steymann, Levin, Antonissen, Surinder Singh, Eind, O and S v Netherlands, McCarthy, Reyes and others.
It is nice to see O and S get a mention, at least, but the policy does not at all explore the obvious incompatibility of the case and the UK’s Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 as amended and the “centre of life” test. The summary is also pretty incomplete and misleading given that it omits to mention that residence and exercise of Treaty rights of over 3 months engages Surinder Singh principles.
SHARE
One Response
also whats interesting is that McCarthy just mentions who doesn’t benefit rather than anything about FP/visa not being required where non-EEA holds an Art10/20 RC.