The appellant, who was an Italian citizen, claimed that Article 8(a) conferred an unlimited right to reside in the United Kingdom.
Held: The court rejected that argument. Staughton LJ said that it was clear that Article 8(a) could not be taken to have replaced Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366: ‘Each of these directives was a measure adopted to give effect to the Treaty, and each of them contained the limitation on the right of residence that the visiting national should not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. The right of residence conferred by art 8a is, therefore, in our view, still subject to that limitation. As for the submission that all nationals now have a general right of residence by virtue of art 8a, this seems to us to ignore the plain words that the art 8a right of residence is made subject to the limitations and conditions contained in measures such as these directives. In our judgment, there is at the moment no unqualified right of residence of the kind claimed by the appellant.’ Freedom of movement for workers in EU depended on intention to work- economic.
Judges:
Staughton LJ
Citations:
Times 26-Jan-1996, [1996] All ER (EC) 461
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Vitale; Regina v Same Ex Parte Do Amaral QBD 18-Apr-1995
A European Union citizen’s right to stay in UK is not unqualified, he must expect to have to seek or find work. The decision of the Home Secretary could be judicially reviewed and ‘in the course of his appeal before the Social Security Appeal . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, European
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.87918