The appellant sought to challenge an order for his detention pending his deportation by the respondent. A national of a non EU state he had married an EU national resident in the UK. He had been convicted of offences here and detained pending deportation on grounds of publicpolicy.
Held: the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the amended order of Eder J: ‘Equality of treatment among EU nationals is one of the cornerstones of the European Union but [article 18 TFEU] is not concerned with the way in which member states treat nationals of other countries who reside within their territories, provided that they do not undermine the laws of the Union . Consistently with the purpose of the Treaty, which is to establish the fundamental legal architecture of the Union, article 18 TFEU is concerned only with the way in which citizens of the Union are treated in member states other than those of which they are themselves nationals. The argument therefore falls down at the first hurdle.’
Moore-Bick LJ said that article 18 TFEU is not concerned with the way in which member states treat nationals of other countries who reside in their territories, adding: ‘However, the difficulties do not end there. In seeking to compare the position of EEA nationals with that of nationals of other countries [the appellant] sought to focus exclusively on the Secretary of State’s power of detention, but that is to view the matter too narrowly. As the judge pointed out, the provision for detention in each case forms part of a wider regime dealing with removal. Unlike nationals of other countries, nationals of the EEA are entitled to reside in this country and enjoy the protection from removal afforded by the Treaty and the Directive. They are subject to a different legal regime which cannot be directly compared to that which applies to other foreign nationals, who can be deported if the Secretary of State deems their removal to be conducive to the public good: see section 3(5)(a) of the 1971 Act. For both these reasons I agree with the judge that [the appellant’s] argument is fundamentally flawed and that there is no substance in this ground of appeal.’
Lord Thomas CJ said: ‘Each deprivation of liberty pending deportation requires proper scrutiny of all the facts by the SSHD in accordance with the Hardial Singh principles. Those principles are the sole guidelines.’
Moore-Bick, Briggs, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1608, [2014] 1 All ER 1144, [2014] 1 WLR 3313
Bailii
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC 27
England and Wales
Citing:
At Admn – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-Mar-2013
Challenge to power of the SS to detain the claimant a national of the European Economic Area pending a decision to deport. The claimant was a third country national married to an EU national. He was detained pending deportation on the grounds of . .
Cited by:
At CA – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, European
Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518804