The claimant had been imprisoned whilst in the UK. He claimed the protection of European law to protect him against a deportation order.
Held: The claimant could not count the time he had served in prison toward the time spent in the UK to calculate his entitlement to stay here. ‘Residence’ in the Regulations means presence in this country exercising of the rights and freedoms conferred by the EU Treaty. An EEA national who, being convicted of a crime, was detained for a significant period in prison or other penal institution, was not resident in this country exercising that right.
Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Lord Justice Elias
[2009] EWCA Civ 371, Times 15-Jun-2009, [2009] WLR(D) 144, [2009] 3 CMLR 9, [2009] 3 CMLR 9, [2010] 1 WLR 158
Bailii
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations (SI 2006 No 1003), Directive 2004/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Batista v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against a deportation order requiring his return to Portugal. He said that when considering the effect of the order on his family, the AIT had applied the wrong test.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The test to be applied was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Crime, European
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.343055