Do dual EU-UK citizens have rights under EU law?

[confusedandsad]

Does that mean they will be staying in the country illegally once the partner getrs their british passport or is there some timeframe they are given to put in an application to receive the spouse visa under british law?

[Casa]

Does that mean they will be staying in the country illegally once the partner getrs their british passport or is there some timeframe they are given to put in an application to receive the spouse visa under british law?

A spouse visa is unlikely to be granted unless the application is submitted from outside of the UK.

[Casa]

Safest for her to naturalise after you have acquired PR. Then, you won't have to rely on the Judgment.

Vinny has already given good advice is his previous post.

[Richard W]

Does that mean they will be staying in the country illegally once the partner getrs their british passport or is there some timeframe they are given to put in an application to receive the spouse visa under british law?

A spouse visa is unlikely to be granted unless the application is submitted from outside of the UK.

The correct timing would be to receive the 'visa' before the partner's naturalisation. The partner who is not a 'qualified person' would then satisfy the immigration requirements for leave to remain, E-LTRP.2.1 by not being in breach of immigration laws, or even 'in breach of the immigration laws' (as present in accordance with the EEA Regulations), not a visitor, and not in possession of leave granted for 6 months or less.

[Casa]

Does that mean they will be staying in the country illegally once the partner getrs their british passport or is there some timeframe they are given to put in an application to receive the spouse visa under british law?

A spouse visa is unlikely to be granted unless the application is submitted from outside of the UK.

The correct timing would be to receive the 'visa' before the partner's naturalisation. The partner who is not a 'qualified person' would then satisfy the immigration requirements for leave to remain, E-LTRP.2.1 by not being in breach of immigration laws, or even 'in breach of the immigration laws' (as present in accordance with the EEA Regulations), not a visitor, and not in possession of leave granted for 6 months or less.

Are you referring to a FLR(M) visa or PR under EEA Regulations The point in my post is that switching from the EEA route into FLR(M) under the Immigration Rules (as reported by members on the forum) is generally refused.
One fairly recent example:
immigration-for-family-members/flr-m-re ... ?hilit=Flr

[Richard W]

Are you referring to a FLR(M) visa or PR under EEA Regulations The point in my post is that switching from the EEA route into FLR(M) under the Immigration Rules (as reported by members on the forum) is generally refused.
One fairly recent example:
immigration-for-family-members/flr-m-re ... ?hilit=Flr

The officer does appear to have confused having leave to remain with not being in breach of immigration law. However, it is unclear that the wife in this case is not in breach of the immigrations laws. Her not being in breach depends on her not being in need of leave to remain, and it will be argued that she needed leave to remain once her husband became British. (The Lounes ruling, once it's given, may overturn this.) I made the point that leave to remain as a partner has to be applied for (and obtained) before the other partner becomes British.

My hazy recollection is that leave to remain was required at one time, but that this was relaxed to allow simply not requiring it - 'not in breach of immigration laws'.

[Rehan84uk]

DEAR SIRS,
I have question that how long home office will take time to issue the PR card after Court decision ?

[Casa]

DEAR SIRS,
I have question that how long home office will take time to issue the PR card after Court decision ?

No one can answer that....anything would be simply guesswork.

[pochaco]

Ok sorry for not explaining properly so in 15 September 2012 I send my application and my wife she is born british and had her irish passport in 2011
And on March 2013 I had my EEA FAMILY MEMBERS R resident
And on 12/2/2017 I was coming from from back home my wife give her british passport they said you are not allowed to have WAS FAMILLY MEMBER VISA this why they cancelled my visa
I hope I explained to you better this time

But at the airport you were allowed to enter the UK and a week later you received a letter from Home Office sent to your address in the UK about the cancellation of your EEA Family Member Resident Card. Do I understand you well?

I wonder what would happen if the spouse of an EEA citizen who has recently become British tried to enter the UK using his/her EEA Family Member Residence Card? Would the person be detained at the airport? Or they would let the family member in and later they would send him a cancellation later, as seems to be the case of Khaled?

[anic00]

Hi All, I would like to receive some advice if anyone is so kind to let me know about my situation.

I'm a EEA citizen, and I just received a letter from the HO confirming that my citizenship application was accepted.
My wife is living in the UK with a EEA spouse VISA, and I Know that if I go to the ceremony there will be consequences for all the reasons explained above.
Is it worth booking the ceremony with he Council as late as possible (beginning of October) and hope that there will be a judgement for the Lounes case before that date?
In that case, would the Lounes Case's judgement take effect immediately?

Thanks

[BIG Dobby]

Case could mean EU citizens who become British citizens and keep dual nationality may be unable to bring family members to UK.

Toufik Lounes case heard. The preliminary opinion of the advocate general of the European court is due on 30 May, with the Grand Chamber’s judgment to be published in the summer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Vinny,

Any update as per the Lounes case? I have been following it... Quite interesting

[secret.simon]

The European Court of Justice, like the UK Parliament, is taking a summer recess.

For the period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:
...
Summer 2017: from Friday 21 July 2017 to Sunday 3 September 2017 inclusive.

So, I would not expect a judgment before 4th September. Coincidentally, the UK Parliament also resumes on 5th September.

It may be worth following @EUCourtPress on Twitter for updates on ECJ cases.

As an aside, I was somewhat startled that the ECJ was breaking new ground by using an AI Bot to give legal opinions on cases before it, as in the Loundes case. I was relieved to later learn that Advocate General (AG, not AI) Yves Bot is a respected French prosecutor.

[Richard W]

There's a lot of confusion around about the conclusion in the opinion. My understanding of the opinion of the Advocate-General Bot is that he is recommending at least the following rulings:

1) Family members resident in the host state retain their status as family members of an EEA national if their sponsor acquires the host state's nationality without losing any nationality.

2) Subsequently acquired family members who are not blood relations do not acquire the status of family members of an EEA national.

Have I got these points right? This seems to work rather like the McCarthy transition arrangements, though without the need for residence documents.

I'm not sure that he has addressed what happens if the old nationality is lost as a result of the acquisition, or what happens if an extended family member has a child, or if an ancestor becomes dependent.

[secret.simon]

Toufik Lounes will be an unlikely triumph of Boris Johnson's "have cake and eat it" expectation, just not in the way he intended. Mrs. Lounes wants the stability and surety of British citizenship, while at the same time also wanting rights that other EU citizens in the UK have, but which British citizens do not. Have your cake and eat it.

I would be interested in seeing the direction that the ECJ will take on it. The usual direction of course with regards to interpreting EU freedom of movement law is in the loosest and broadest manner possible. I fully expect the final judgment to be on the lines of a dual British/EU citizen being solely an EEA citizen for the purpose of freedom of movement of all non-EEA relations, ideally for life.

Against that is the suggestion (in the unlikely locale of a German constitutional law blog) that perhaps even constitutional and supreme courts are not immune to the increasingly populist tones of political discourse and the observation of a former judge of the ECJ that the EU's citizen rights proposal (and by extension additional rights for dual citizens) risks creating a super-caste with enhanced privileges. It may be that the law is for turning.

As regards interpreting the law, I would not bother so much with the text of either EU law or much of the ECJ case law. The expansive teleological/purposive interpretation approach of the ECJ (which is at variance with the UK's textual approach) means that the interpretation is so overtly broad as to render the law practically meaningless.

Think about it. Directive 2004/38/EC specifically states that it applies to citizens who move across member-states. The Advocate General has, in his opinion,stated as much. But then, Singh and Eind, both judicial constructs which do not exist in any law, applied it by analogy, in spite of the law not applying directly, based on the intent of the legislature. That intent is read in based on broad principles that are not specific in any detail.The intents of EU law are mere phantasms, conjured up at will. The ECJ judges are like Humpty-Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

I used to think that the "right to privacy" found in the penumbra of the (US) Constitution (in SCOTUS's judgment of Roe v Wade) was a bad way to interpret the law. The ECJ's approach does not so much find things in the penumbra of the Treaties, it finds it in the next solar system.

[pochaco]

The European Court of Justice, like the UK Parliament, is taking a summer recess.

For the period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:
...
Summer 2017: from Friday 21 July 2017 to Sunday 3 September 2017 inclusive.

So, I would not expect a judgment before 4th September. Coincidentally, the UK Parliament also resumes on 5th September.

The ECJ timetable is published until 22 September 2017 and the Lounes case is not listed yet:

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6581/en/

[secret.simon]

Checked ECJ timetable again. It has now been published up to 6th October and the Lounes case has not yet been listed.

[zapzap]

Checked ECJ timetable again. It has now been published up to 6th October and the Lounes case has not yet been listed.

It seems we will have to wait. I just want to know how it ends

[secret.simon]

Checked ECJ timetable again. It has now been published up to 6th October and the Lounes case has not yet been listed.

Not listed yet, till the 26th of October.

[eeaprneu2]

Published further till 10th of November and nothing yet. There are some 'freedom of movement of persons' cases but no clue what they are.

[Richard W]

I predict April 2019.

[eeaprneu2]

I predict April 2019.

Richard, do you know if there is some work being done in the background which is causing delay? or is just a matter of the case waiting in the queue before it comes in front of the judges who would decide there and then?

Not sure how it works.

[Richard W]

Richard, do you know if there is some work being done in the background which is causing delay?

I suspect they are nervous about making a formal decision. It's a politically awkward time. The rights of EU citizens' family members remains a matter of disagreement in the withdrawal negotiations, as does the system for resolving disputes. Negotiations will not be helped by the EUCJ ruling against the UK government, even in part.

[secret.simon]

Published further till 10th of November and nothing yet. There are some 'freedom of movement of persons' cases but no clue what they are.

Those cases are primarily about freedom of establishment, essentially about businesses working across borders. In the list, click through on the Case Number, then "List of Documents" and have a quick glance through the documents to get an idea of what the case is about.

I predict April 2019.

Any reasoning behind that specific date?

Richard, do you know if there is some work being done in the background which is causing delay? or is just a matter of the case waiting in the queue before it comes in front of the judges who would decide there and then?

Given that the Advocate General has given his opinion, I presume that the case has been heard already. The judges will now be deliberating and discussing among themselves.

As Richard W has mentioned, it is a politically awkward time for both the EU and the ECJ. Quite apart from Brexit, the East European countries are not happy with either the ECJ or the EU, the strong results for the AfD in Germany show that even in the most European countries, there is a strong nationalist bent and of course, Catalonia has thrown a hand-grenade under the EU bus about the rights of EU citizens. What will be the status of Catalan citizens if Catalonia secedes from Spain? Will formerly EU (by virtue of Spanish citizenship) citizens lose their citizenship rights in the EU? All those questions pondered over at the time of the Scottish referendum, but never answered, may need to be answered now.

[Obie]

The suggestion that the CJEU is delaying the ruling in Lounes because of sensitivity towards Britain , is utter nonsense.
The CJEU is an independent Judiciary body of the European Union, whose decision are not based on politics, or political temperature, they interpret the Treaty having regards to its letter, spirit, and the purpose for which it was created.

Lounes is a matter dealt with by the Grand chamber, and the Opinion only came out this spring, and then we had the Judicial break, and now the court is back again. Assembling the Grandchamber is more timely than the ordinary chamber of 3 or 4 judes.

The delay has nothing to do with brexit, if that was the case, the case of CS, which was more sensitive than Lounes would not have been out yet and against the UK approach to Zambrano. Brexit is a UK problem, which does not have much impact on the running of EU institutions.

I don't see any sensitivity in Lounes, the person in Lounes had rights, which the UK government thought can be extinguished after they acquire British Citizenship, because of a flawed interpretation of McCarthy. I am of the strong and firm believe that the COurt will rule quite emphatically that the UK's approach is fundamentally flawed.

The Situation in Spain is also different, it has nothing to do with immigration or Brexit. It is about a nation seeking the ability as to how it should be governed.

The immigration UK has problem with is different from the EU. The is a general consensus among the 27, that internal migration is one of the key pillar of the single market and it is of benefit to the EU.

The migration that the UK has problem is not the one the EU has problem with.

[at12]

It is there for the 14th of November no ?