The Eind case (Case Number: C-291/05)

Martin Stevens made this Freedom of Information request to UK Border Agency

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear UK Border Agency,

The 'Eind' case (Case C-291/05) has huge implications for non-EU family members of certain British nationals (i.e. those British nationals who have worked elsewhere in the EU and then subsequently returned to the UK).

The UKBA website does not mention the case at all nor its implications for such individuals.

In light of this above, I hereby make the following Freedom of Information requests:

1. Is the UKBA aware, as a matter of policy, of the Eind case? (case number Case C-291/05). If so, what is, briefly, the UKBA's understanding of this case?

2. What is the UKBA policy in dealing with EEA2 applications that refer to the 'Eind' case? Please provide any internal guidance notes/instructions that are provided to Case Workers on how to deal with 'Eind' cases.

3. If no training/guidance is provided to Case Workers on the Eind judgment - please provide an explanation as to why the UKBA, as a matter of policy, have chosen to not provide such training/guidance.

4. How many applications has the UKBA received, since the Eind ruling, that were made on the strengths of the 'Eind' ruling?

5. What is the UKBA reasoning for failing to mention the implications of the Eind ruling anywhere on their website (and thereby failing to inform potential applicants of their rights under this ruling)?

6. Does the UKBA plan to update their website in due course so to inform future applicants of the implications of 'Eind' judgment (similar to the way in which in the website currently informs applicants about the Surinder Singh judgement). If not, why not?

7. Why does the EEA2 form not have any fields on it that would cater for applicants who wish to apply on the basis of the 'Eind' ruling?

Yours faithfully,

Martin Stevens

Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ), UK Border Agency

Thank you for your request; we shall respond shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Act Policy Team

show quoted sections

European Operational Policy Enquiries, UK Border Agency

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Stevens,

Thank you for your email dated 30 July in which you made a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please see the attached .pdf document for the UK Border Agency's response to your enquiry.

Yours sincerely,

European Operational Policy Team
UK Border Agency

show quoted sections

Richard Loweth left an annotation ()

I found that your FOI Request was most inspiring and encouraging!

I have therefore sent my own FOI Request to the Home office but expanding it to refer not only to "Eind" but to "Metock" as in their reply to you the UKBA seem, conveniently to them, to ovelook "Metock"!

Oh dear!

Best Regards,

Richard Loweth

-------------------------------------------------------

"Dear Home Office,

The "Metock" case (C-127/08) in the European Court of Justice
subsequent to the "Eind" case (C-291-05) has huge implications for
non-EU spouses of certain British nationals such as those British
nationals who have worked elsewhere in the EU and then subsequently
returned to the UK.

The UKBA website does not appear to mention either case at all. Nor
the implications of the two cases for such individuals in relation
to British nationals wishing to use the "Eind" case (C-291/05) and
how it is affected by "Metock" judgement.

The Court ruling in "Metock" that the Citizenship Directive 2004/38
confers rights of entry and residence to non-EU national family
members of EU citizens not possessing the nationality of their host
Member State regardless of whether there had been prior lawful
residence in another Member State

In light of this above, I hereby make the following Freedom of
Information requests:

1. Is the UKBA aware, as a matter of policy, of the "Eind" case
(C-291/05) and the "Metock" case (C-127/08)? If so, what is,
briefly, the UKBA's understanding of "Eind" and how it is directly
impacted by the decision in "Metock" in relation to a British
national's non-EU spouse who is resident, say, in Nigeria?

2. What is the UKBA policy in dealing with EEA2 applications that
refer not only to the "Eind" case but also now it has been further
made clear to the "Metock" case with specific regard to the British
national's non-EU spouse?

Please provide any internal guidance notes/instructions that are
provided to Case Workers on how to deal with "Eind" cases and how,
subsequent to the decision in "Metock" it has been made clear that
Citizenship Directive 2004/38 imposes no condition that family
members can only join on first entry if they are already resident
within the European Union.

3. If no training/guidance is provided to Case Workers on the
"Eind" judgment and the subsequent judgement in "Metock" please
provide an explanation as to why the UKBA, as a matter of policy,
have chosen to not provide such training/guidance.

4. How many applications has the UKBA received, since the "Eind"
judgement that were made on the strengths of the "Eind" ruling?

5. How many applications has the UKBA received, since the "Metock"
judgement that were made on the strengths of the "Metock" ruling
and its affect on the "Eind" judgement?

6. What is the UKBA reasoning for failing to mention the
implications of the "Eind" ruling and how it is affected by the
"Metock" ruling anywhere on their website (and thereby failing to
inform potential applicants of their rights under this BOTH
rulings)?

7. Does the UKBA plan to update their website in due course so to
inform future applicants of the implications of "Eind" judgment
(similar to the way in which in the website informs applicants
about the Surinder Singh judgement). If not, why not?

8. Why does the EEA2 form not have any fields on it that would
cater for applicants who wish to apply on the basis of the "Eind"
ruling and the "Metock" ruling?

9. Has the Home Office updated its Annex A – European Operational
Policy Notice 05-2011: “Instruction on Regulation 9 Surinder Singh
cases” of 19 May 2011 to now give effect to BOTH the "Eind" ruling
AND the "Metock" ruling?

10. If the Home Office has updated the document as noted in 9.
above, has this updated document been communicated to its staff at
Her Majesty's High Commissions and Deputy High Commissions, on what
date, and what is the content of that updated document? And in
particular, and on what date, to those two establisments in
respectively Abuja, Nigeria and Lagos, Nigeria?

11. What instructions has the Home Office now given to those staff
as to the documents that the non-EU spouse can and should only be
required to produce in accordance with Citizenship Directive
2004/38 in relation to applications under that Directive as made
clear in the three cases of "Surinder Singh" and "Eind" and
"Metock" and to the time scale in which such an application should
be reasonably processed?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Loweth"