The first applicant, his wife and her children had been granted leave to stay in the UK. At the time the leave was withdrawn the children were settled in schools, and were granted indefinite leave. The second applicant was the mother of children who also acquired leave. They each appealed refusal of leave to stay.
Held: The children had acquired the rights as the children of migrant workers within the EEC under the Regulation. That regulation was to be interpreted so as to provide also for the right of residence of the child’s primary carer.
‘A citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can, as a citizen of the Union, enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exercise of that right is subject to the limitations and conditions referred to in that provision, but the competent authorities and, where necessary, the national courts must ensure that those limitations and conditions are applied in compliance with the general principles of Community Law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality.’
‘A citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can, as a citizen of the Union, enjoy there a right of residence by direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exercise of that right is subject to the limitations and conditions referred to in that provision, but the competent authorities and, where necessary, the national courts must ensure that those limitations and conditions are applied in compliance with the general principles of Community Law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality.’
Judges:
Rodriguez Iglesia, Jann, Macken, Colneric, von Bahr, Gulmann, Edward, La Pergola, Puissochet, Wathelet, Skouris
Citations:
Times 08-Oct-2002, [2002] EUECJ C-413/99, [2002] ECR 1-7091
Links:
Statutes:
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 12
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 3-May-2006
The applicants sought asylum. Their child had a right of residence as a European citizen.
Held: The applicants could not rely upon their child’s right of residence to establish one for themselves. . .
Cited – Kaczmarek v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Nov-2008
The claimant entered the UK as a student coming from Poland. She then worked as a kitchen maid, but having left that job on becoming a mother was refused income support. She later returned to work. She said that the rules which denied her benefit . .
Cited – MDB and Others (Article 12, 1612/68) Italy UTIAC 2-Jun-2010
TIAC (i) In London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim Case C-310/08 and Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth Case C-480/08 the European Court of Justice ECJ confirmed the principle established in the Baumbast Case . .
Cited – Mirga v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Samin v Westminster City Council SC 27-Jan-2016
The claimants, a Polish national and an Austrian national, appealed against decisions of the Court of Appeal upholding decisions that they were not entitled to certain benefits, namely income support and housing assistance respectively, pursuant to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Children
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177329
