Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Excellent post.nonspecifics wrote:Some of this case law might interest you:
http://www.gherson.com/news-articles/ee ... imit-2797/
The question to be decided by the Asylum and Immigration Chamber of the Upper Tribunal in OB (Morocco) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKUT 420 (IAC) was whether it mattered if there was a gap between the time the UK National spent working in the EEA state and his or her return to the UK.......
"His application was refused because the Secretary of State for the Home Department didn't believe that the Appellant's wife had been working in the Republic of Ireland. He appealed, and the Immigration Judge hearing his case accepted that the Appellant's wife had been working in Ireland and exercising treaty rights. However the Immigration Judge nonetheless dismissed the Appellant's appeal because of the gap of 13 months between when the Appellant's wife stopped working in Ireland and her return to the UK.
The Upper Tribunal has found that the Regulations did not contain any requirement that a person exercising treaty rights in another EEA state had to return to the UK within any period of time in order for his or her family members to be able to invoke Regulation 9.
It considered European Union case law, in particular Eind (C-291/05) December 2007 and found that the case law did:
"…establish the principle that the right of entry afforded to the non-national spouse cannot be restrictively interpreted and Community law must be interpreted sufficiently broadly to promote the objective of ensuring protection for the family life of nationals of the Member States".
The Tribunal allowed the Appellant's appeal and directed that he should be granted a residence card pursuant to Regulation 17."
The Tribunal judgement can be found here:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC ... rocco.html