Does the UK not abide by the Eind Ruling

[Johnjk]

Eind states
"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."

Does Eind ruling not count as that the British Citizen does not need to be exercising treaty rights on return to the UK though this has been insisted on that the British Citizen must be working in the UK since 2016.

Has Eind been revoked?

[vinny]

They are apparently limiting the initial right of residence as complying with Eind.

Free movement rights: family members of British citizens

Assessing whether the British citizen is a qualified person in the UK
To be able to sponsor a family member’s or extended family member’s right to reside in the UK, the British citizen must be able to satisfy the conditions for being a qualified person, unless they are in their first 3 months of residence. This follows the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling in the case of O and B. In this case, the CJEU found that, where an EU citizen returns to their Member State of nationality after exercising their free movement rights in another Member State, the Free Movement Directive applies by analogy to any family members or extended family members wishing to accompany or join them there.
This means that a British citizen does not need to be a qualified person for the first 3 months after returning to the UK. However, to sponsor a family member’s or extended family members UK residence after the initial 3 month period, the British citizen needs to be the equivalent of a qualified person in the UK. Although this CJEU judgment was handed down on 12 March 2014, it reflects how the law should have been applied since the Free Movement Directive came into force on 30 April 2006. Therefore, the applicant must include evidence that the British citizen meets this condition.

[Obie]

Eind is still a good law, the Home Office is chatting utter nonsense.

The court at no point overturned Eind, infact it extended the scope of the principles of surinder singh and Eind to former migrant workers who return to their home country.

The court ruled that the status of a migrant worker continues to have effect even after the employment relationship had come to an end. The court ruled that this effect includes the right of the migrant worker to return and continue residing with family members, even when the migrant worker is not working.

The case of O B was clearly not dealing with the position of a Migrant worker, nor was the court addressing the question of whether the Eind ruling is still effective.

[mkhan2525]

In this very recent unreported case the UTT judge after analysing the case of O & B came to the conclusion there was no need for BC to be engaged in qualified activities when they return home.

13. Following O and B, the UK national exercising Treaty rights in another Member state before returning home need not necessarily be economically active as they just need to be able to demonstrate a genuine exercise of Treaty rights.

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 05957-2017

I know of someone who returned to the UK recently and applied for Universal Credit and it was refused on the basis that the sponsor was not exercising treaty rights in the UK. They applied for a reconsideration of that decision based on Eind and DWP overturned the refusal to grant benefit to the non-EU family member.

[Obie]

In paragraph 8 of the unreported case below, the judge clearly accepted that it was not necessary for a person to demonstrate that their family member is a qualified person for them to qualify.

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.c ... ery=(eind)

[mkhan2525]

The paragraph I quoted above from the unreported case counters the Home Office argument in O & B that BC must exercise treaty rights on return because the Directive applies by analogy. In this judgment the judge came to the conclusion through O & B that this in not the case as opposed to Eind.

Both cases are useful in the sense that it reinforces the courts view that nothing has changed since the last reported decision in OB Surinder Singh spouse Morocco [2010] UKUT 420 (IAC) in respect to Eind being good law.

[Obie]

I respectively believe that paragraph 13 of the case you are citing, was addressing the question of whether a British citizen in another member state need to have exercised treaty rights in an economic activity in that member state in other to rely upon Surinder Singh upon return to the UK.

Unfortunately that case did not address the question of whether the EEA citizen need to be a Qualified person upon return. The point the judge was making is that the British Citizen need not have resided as a worker or Self Employed inorder to Qualify.