Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
EU law still applies in legacy appeals under the EEA Regulations
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
Geci (EEA Regs: transitional provisions, appeal rights) Albania  UKUT 285 (IAC) is another appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, but with “highly unusual” facts. Mr Geci had returned to the UK in breach of a deportation order (twice). Rather than seeking to enforce the deportation order, the Home Office decided to refuse to issue a residence card pursuant to regulation 24 of the EEA Regulations. The Upper Tribunal found that it had no power to do so.
Post-Brexit relevance of the EEA Regs
The Upper Tribunal helpfully explains the position with EU free movement law post-Brexit, which has left us all slightly adrift in recent times. (But see Iain’s briefing on the subject.)
The tribunal noted that the EEA Regulations were withdrawn under the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 on 31 December 2020. But parts were preserved for certain purposes by three separate instruments, as highlighted in paragraph 5 of the judgment:
(a) The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations (SI 2020 1309), (“the EEA Transitional Regulations”),
(b) The Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; and,
(c) The Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (“Citizens’ Rights Restriction Regulations”).
Each instrument preserved a different subset of the regulations, for the purposes covered by that particular instrument.
In this case, the residence card refusal happened in November 2019, followed by an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal that was dismissed in January 2020. The onward appeal to the Upper Tribunal took place after 31 December 2020 and the revocation of the EEA Regulations, but fell to be considered under paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 3 of the EEA Transitional Regulations:
Existing appeal rights and appeals
5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the provisions of the EEA Regulations 2016 specified in paragraph 6 continue to apply…
(b) to any appeal which has been brought under the EEA Regulations 2016 and has not been finally determined before commencement day,
The only ground of appeal available to Mr Geci was whether the decision under appeal breached his EU law rights, specifically Directive 2004/38/EC (preserved by Part 4 of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement). Article 9 of that Directive deals with administrative formalities for non-EU family members, and Article 10 with when residence cards ought to be issued to such family members.
No basis in EU law for denying a residence card
The judge concluded that, as it was not disputed that the appellant had a right of residence under the Directive (as he was the spouse of an EU national exercising treaty rights in the UK), then he had to be issued with a residence card. This is because the Directive does not permit a refusal to issue a residence card on public policy, public security or public health grounds. What it does permit is for people to be removed on those grounds — but the Home Office had not invoked those powers in making its decision.
Both Articles 9 and 10 of the Directive require that somebody must be issued a card as confirmation of a right of residence…
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there is any proper basis on which under the Directive or for that matter the EU Treaties that the Secretary of State has the right to refuse to issue a card as confirmation of the rights that a person holds. That is entirely different from the situation where someone’s rights of residence have been restricted, curtailed or cancelled on grounds of public policy, public security and so on, set out in Article 27(2).
The judge did suggest in his concluding remarks that there was nothing to stop the government taking enforcement action after issuing the residence card: “the Secretary of State… would appear to have the power to expel or remove the appellant, subject to any right of appeal”.
This case underlines the ongoing complexities for historical cases with outstanding appeals. It also serves as a reminder that the EEA Regulations 2016 still have to be read in accordance with the Directive. If they are found to be incompatible, then the regulations will be disapplied.