This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'The Eind case (Case Number: C-291/05)'.

European Operational Policy Team 
North West Region 
PO Box 306 
Department 45 
L2 0QN 
Martin Stevens 
[email address]  
(FOI)Home Office Ref: 23660 
Date: 9 August 2012 
Dear Mr. Stevens,  
Thank you for your e-mail of 30 July in which you ask for information regarding the 
United Kingdom‟s implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union („‟ECJ‟‟) in the case of Eind (C291-05). Your request is being 
handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  
You have asked whether the UK Border Agency is aware of the judgment in the case 
of Eind and what the UK Border Agency policy is in dealing with applications affected 
by the judgment. 
As you are aware, the ECJ ruled in Eind that a non-EEA national family member of 
an EEA national who has worked in another EEA member state, and who resided 
with the EEA national in that state, has a right to reside in the Member State of which 
the worker is a national even where that worker does not carry on any effective and 
genuine economic activities on their return.  
The Eind judgment expanded the scope of a previous judgment of the ECJ in the 
case of Surinder Singh (C370-90) which confirmed the rights of non-EEA family 
members of EEA nationals who had worked in another EEA member state to 
accompany their family member on their return to the EEA member state of their 
nationality. The Surinder Singh judgment has been incorporated into the Immigration 
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 („‟the Regulations‟‟) by way of 
regulation 9.  
The impact of the Eind judgment on UK nationals is that where the UK national has 
been exercising Treaty rights as a worker or self-employed person in another EEA 
member state, the right of family members who resided with them in that member 
state to accompany them to the UK under regulation 9 is not reliant on the UK 
national being economically active in the UK on their return. 

The UK Border Agency acknowledges the judgment in Eind and as a result there is 
no requirement for UK nationals who seek to rely on the provisions of regulation 9 to 
sponsor their family members under the Regulations to provide evidence of 
employment or self-employment on their return to the UK. 
The impact of the judgment has been communicated to UK Border Agency staff in an 
internal guidance notice, which is set out at Annex A of this response. Please note 
that this document has had some of the information held within it redacted as it falls 
to be exempted from release under Section 40(2) of the Act, as it refers to personal 
information. The exempted sections are marked as redacted. 
We are currently in the process of modernising the existing staff guidance for 
European case work, and will ensure that the updated position is reflected when the 
modernised guidance is published. 
You have requested information regarding the number of applications made on the 
basis of the Eind ruling since the judgment was handed down by the ECJ.  
Unfortunately, as applications for a document confirming a right of admission or 
residence under the Regulations by persons relying on regulation 9 are recorded in 
the same way as applications made by family members of EEA nationals, it is not 
possible to ascertain how many applications were made on this basis since the Eind 
judgment was handed down in December 2007. 
You have asked why the UK Border Agency website does not highlight the impact of 
the Eind judgment on applications from family members of UK nationals under the 
Regulations. As a result of your enquiry we have reviewed the information on the UK 
Border Agency website and we agree that the information for family members of 
British citizens on the “European Nationals” section of the website is out of date and 
reflects the previous position following the judgment in Surinder Singh. Thank you for 
bringing this to our attention and please be advised that we will amend this section in 
due course. 
You have also asked about why there is no provision in the EEA2 form for 
applications on the basis of the ‘Eind’ judgment. Amendments were in fact made to 
the EEA2 and EEA4 form to better accommodate applications for documentation on 
the basis of regulation 9. These are referred to as “Surinder Singh” cases as this was 
the most relevant judgment for family members of UK nationals, however, the form 
does not preclude applications submitted on the basis of the Eind judgment where 
the EEA national is not economically active in the UK. 
In keeping with the Freedom of Information Act, we assume that all information can 
be released to the public unless it is exempt. In line with normal practice we are 
therefore releasing the information which you requested via the Home Office website.  
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal 
review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to 
the address below, quoting reference FOI 23660. If you ask for an internal review, it 
would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.  

Information Access Team 
Home Office 
Ground Floor, Seacole Building 
2 Marsham Street 
London SW1P 4DF 
e-mail: [email address]   
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request 
will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. 
If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of 
complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the 
Freedom of Information Act. 
Yours sincerely 
European Operational Policy Team 
UK Border Agency 

Annex A – European Operational Policy Notice 05-2011: “Instruction on 
Regulation 9 Surinder Singh cases” [Redacted] 
European Operational Policy Team  

Regulation 9  
19 May 2011 
Issue number: 

1.  This  notice  is  to  clarify  the  position  relating  to  family  members  of  British  citizens 
who  apply  for  documentation  on  the  basis  of  regulation  9  of  the  Immigration 
(European  Economic  Area)  Regulations  2006  (“the  Regulations”)  (i.e.  Surinder 
Singh cases). 
2.  Currently,  section  5.5  of  Chapter  5  of  the  European  Casework  Instructions  – 
Residence Card Applications – states that in support of an application which relies 
on regulation 9 the applicant must provide:   
  The valid British passport of the British citizen  
  The passport of the third country national  
  Marriage certificate/civil partnership certificate  
  Documentation  confirming  that  the  British  citizen  would  be  a  qualified 
person if s/he were an EEA national  
3.  This  guidance  is  incorrect  and  does  not  reflect  the  actual  requirements  of 
regulation 9 or associated case law.  
4.  Legal advice has clarified that the British sponsor in  a Surinder Singh case does 
not  need  to  prove  that  s/he  continues  to  be  a  worker  or  self-employed  person 
upon  his/her  return  to  the  United  Kingdom.    The  UK  national  is  only  required  to 
show that s/he was a worker or self-sufficient person before returning to the United 
Kingdom.  The  UK  national  is  not  required  to  be  a  qualified  person  under  the 
Regulations following his return to the UK.   
5.  This  position  was  most  recently  confirmed  in  the  case  of  Eind,  where  the  Union 
citizen (who was Dutch) had worked in the UK but on his return to the Netherlands 
was neither working nor self-employed.  The ECJ held that the fact that he was no 
longer  carrying  on  any  effective  and  genuine  economic  activities  on  his  return  to 
his home State was irrelevant.  
6.  The ECIs will be amended to reflect this accordingly. 
7.  Any  policy  enquiries  on  this  Notice  should  be  addressed  to  [REDACTED]  or 

Head of European and Nationality Policy   
19 May 2010