Posts

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FURTHER EXTENSION OF IMMIGRATION PERMISSIONS

The Department of Justice has announced an additional two-month extension of immigration permissions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

This temporary extension applies to the following categories:

  • Persons with immigration permissions due to expire between 20th May 2020 and 20th July 2020, including those that were already extended under the previous notice issued on 20th March 2020;
  • Persons awaiting their first registration, having been granted permission to land at a port of entry on condition they register at Burgh Quay or their local registration office within 3 months, but who have not yet done so;
  • Persons resident in Ireland on the basis of Short Stay visas.

The notice confirms that the permissions will be automatically renewed for a two-month period, on the same basis as the existing permission and subject to the same conditions.

The notice also clarifies that international English Language Students can continue to work if they wish but that they must also re-enrol in an online course of study to adhere to the conditions of their permission.

The registration office in Burgh Quay in Dublin will remain closed and will only reopen when it is safe to do so. The normal requirements to register residence permission will not arise until the registration offices can reopen or alternative arrangements are put in place.

Non-nationals can present evidence of their last residence permission, in the form of a formal decision letter and/or the IRP card, together with a copy of the Notice, as evidence of their ongoing permission to remain in the State.

The notice can be accessed here.

If you or a family member are affected by this notice, please contact our office to discuss.

Supreme Court to make a reference to the CJEU in Subhan and Ali test case

SOCIAL DEPENDENCY IN EU TREATY RIGHTS CASES

Applications for visas and residence cards for family members of EU citizens pursuant to EU Treaty Rights often require proof that the Applicant is dependent on their EU Citizen family member.

The concept of dependency is not defined in the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC) or the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015. However, case law of the Court of Justice of the EU has established that an Applicant must show that they are not in a position to support themselves, having regard to their financial and social conditions.

Thus, while dependency is often assessed in terms of the existence of financial support between the Applicant and the EU Citizen, it can also arise from social, emotional and medical circumstances.

Several recent judgments of the High Court have shed some light on the importance of social dependency in EU Treaty Rights cases.

The case of Chittajallu v The Minister for Justice and Equality, Record Number 2019/28, in which Berkeley Solicitors were acting for the Applicant, involved a British citizen who submitted a visa application for her dependent mother.

In his judgment delivered on 11th July 2019, Mr Justice Barrett highlighted that the Minister had not properly considered the issue of social dependency arising from the Applicant’s medical circumstances in the initial decision.

Berkeley Solicitors also acted for the Applicant in the case of Agha v The Minister for Justice and Equality, Record Number 2019/374, the facts of which similarly involved a British citizen who applied for a visa for his elderly dependent mother who had serious health issues and was not capable of living independently.

In his judgment of 23rd December 2019, Mr Justice Barrett states at paragraph 6:

“There is a further separate error presenting in this regard, viz. that, in breach of European Union law, the Minister did not have any regard to the particular illness of Mr Agha’s mother and how this impacted on dependence…

As is clear from Jia, at para. 37 (as touched upon in Chittajallu v. Minister for Justice & Equality [2019] IEHC 521, at para. 4): “in order to determine whether the relatives in the ascending line…are dependent…the host Member State must assess, whether, having regard to their financial and social conditions, they are not in a position to support themselves” [Emphasis added]. No such analysis was not undertaken here…”

It is clear from the above High Court decisions that a failure to take into account an Applicant’s social dependency on the EU citizen constitutes a breach of EU law. An analysis of the Applicant’s financial dependency alone will not be sufficient.

In both of the above cases, the Court ruled that the initial refusal was unlawful and remitted the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration.

This is a positive development for family members who are dependent on their EU Citizen family member for reasons other than, or in addition to, their financial circumstances.

Social dependency may arise from factors such as an Applicant’s medical circumstances or the nature of the social and emotional relationship between the Applicant and the EU Citizen.

If you or a family member wish to discuss an EU Treaty Rights application, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

The full judgments will be published shortly on the website of the courts, which can be found here.

Supreme Court to make a reference to the CJEU in Subhan and Ali test case

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE SAME HOUSEHOLD IN EU TREATY RIGHTS CASES

On the 19th December 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the case of Subhan and Ali v the Minister for Justice and Equality, in which Berkeley Solicitors acted for the Applicants.

The decision is significant for family members of EU citizens who have applications, or are considering making applications, for visas or residence cards based on the fact that they are members of the same household of an EU citizen family member under Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States, (‘the Citizens Directive’).

The case concerned the refusal of an EU Fam residence card to the cousin of a British citizen, who had lived as the member of his household for many years in the United Kingdom prior to moving to Ireland.

The central issue before the Court of Appeal was the meaning of the term ‘household of the Union Citizen’  for the purposes of the Citizens’ Directive.

The Applicants argued that the household of the Union citizen consists of those persons who are family members and who reside in the same dwelling as the Union citizen. The Respondent argued that what is to be established is that the household concerned is that of the Union citizen, and that the centrality of the Union citizen in the family living arrangements is to be assessed.

The Applicants also put forward submissions regarding other language versions of the term ‘membership of the same household’ and found that there was no ‘head of the household’  test in those versions.

Ms Justice Baker ultimately upheld the decision of the High Court in finding that the criterion of ‘membership of the same household’ is not simply established where family members live under the same roof. Rather, members of the household of the Union citizen must be those persons who are some way central to the family life of the Union citizen.

The Court held:

“68. It may be more useful to consider the notion of household by reference to what it is not. Persons living under the same roof are not necessarily members of the same household and they may well be what we colloquially call housemates. An element of sharing that is necessary in a household may well be met in that the persons living together may agree on a distribution of household tasks and a proportionate contribution towards household expenses. But because, for the purpose of the Citizens Directive, one must focus on the living arrangements of the Union citizen, the members of the household of the Union citizen must, on the facts, be persons who are in some way central to his or her family life, that those family members are an integral part of the core family life of the Union citizen, and are envisaged to continue to be such for the foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable future. The defining characteristic is that the members of the group intend co-living arrangement to continue indefinitely, that the link has become the norm and is envisaged as ongoing and is part of the fabric of the personal life of each of them.

69. It is not a test of with whom the Union citizen would choose to live, but rather, with whom he or she expects to be permitted or facilitated to live in order that his or her family unit would continue in being, and the loss of whom in the family unit is a material factor that might impede the Union citizen choosing to or being able to exercise free movement rights. That second element, it seems to me, properly reflects the core principle intended to be protected by the Citizens Directive.

70. It may be dangerous to give an example, and I do so by way of illustration only. A family member who had resided in the same house as a Union citizen for many years before free movement rights were exercised might well have become a member of the family with whom there has developed a degree of emotional closeness such that the person is integral to the family life of the Union citizen. That person could be a member of a household because the living arrangements display connecting factors that might, in an individual case, be termed a “household”. If the rights of free movement of a Union citizen within the group are likely to be impaired by the fact of that living arrangement, whether for reasons of the moral duty owed to the other members of the group or otherwise, then the rights under the Citizens Directive fall for consideration.”

The Court found that the EU Citizen’s Free Movement rights where not impeded or restricted by refusing a right of residence to his family member in this case.

The full judgment has been published on the website of the courts and can be found here.

FURTHER DECISION ISSUED IN WHICH MINISTER RETROSPECTIVELY AMENDS STAMP 2 A PERMISSION TO STAMP 3 FOR SPOUSE OF PHD STUDENT

Berkeley Solicitors has received a second decision within two months in which the Department of Justice and Equality has agreed to retrospectively amend Stamp 2A permission, incorrectly assigned to our client, to Stamp 3 immigration permission spanning over a period of two years.

In November 2019, we posted a blog on this issue which can be read in full here.

Our client is the spouse of a PhD student in Ireland and prior to being issued with Stamp 2 A, our client held Stamp 3 permission for a number of years.

Our client was never provided with an explanation for the change in permission nor was she provided with any information regarding the impact or consequences of this change of status.

Given that it is the practice for the Minister to issue Stamp 3 permission to Spouses of PhD Students, the significant decision to retrospectively amend our client’s permission is particularly encouraging.

We highlight that this decision provides our client with further years of reckonable residence, which she was deprived of through the wrongful issuance of Stamp 2 A. Our client is now able to proceed with an application for naturalisation.

We are delighted to see requests for the retrospective amendment of a person’s registration or permission being facilitated and it has become clear to us that this it is entirely possible for the Minister to issue such decisions where appropriate.

If you or a family member are affected by the issuance of inappropriate immigration permission please do not hesitate to contact our office.

2,000 PEOPLE FROM OVER 100 COUNTRIES CONFERRED WITH IRISH CITIZENSHIP

Congratulations to the almost 2,000 people who were conferred with Irish citizenship at ceremonies in Co. Kerry on Monday 9th December 2019.

We especially wish to congratulate a number of our clients who have recently received positive naturalisation decisions.

The new citizens are originally from 103 different countries, with over a quarter originating from Poland and the United Kingdom.

The ceremonies took place at the Gleneagle INEC in Killarney and were presided over by retired High Court judge. The Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan, and Minister of State for Equality, Immigration and Integration, David Stanton, were also in attendance.

Such ceremonies had been placed on hold following the High Court ruling in the Jones case in July 2019 that anyone applying for citizenship could not spend a day outside Ireland in the 12 months before applying.

Last month the Court of Appeal overturned this ruling, calling it “unduly rigid” and “unworkable”.

Minister Stanton described the ceremony as a major life event for the candidates, stating:

“Ultimately it’s about building a society where we all live in harmony while, at the same time, respecting our cultural and religious differences… The possibilities open to you in Ireland today are almost limitless. You are now beginning a new journey and a new phase in your life by becoming Irish citizens.”

Approximately 127,000 people have received Irish citizenship in the last 18 years. If you or a family member wish to discuss applying for naturalisation, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

 

 

UPDATE ON VISA DELAYS – ATIF AND MAHMOOD CASE

UPDATE – A few months ago, we published a blog regarding the considerable delays in the processing of EUTR visas for the family members of EU citizens. In Atif and Mahmood, several applicants challenged the legality of such delays.

In Atif and Mahmood, the High Court in Ireland ruled in favour of the applicants indicating that any delay over six months in processing visa applications was too long. However, the Minister appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals in Ireland. In order to make a decision in this matter, the Court of Appeals referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for guidance.

Specifically, the Court of Appeals sought a preliminary ruling on how to interpret Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004. This article addresses the free movement rights of EU citizens and their families and requires the Member State “to issue a visa as quickly as possible to the spouse and family members of a Union citizen exercising free movement rights.”

The Court of Appeals set forth these questions to the ECJ for preliminary ruling:

  1. Does a Member State breach the requirement of Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC when the delays in processing an application for EUTR visas for the family members of EU citizens exceed 12 months?
  2. Does a Member State breach the requirement of Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC when delays in processing are due to ensuring that the application is not fraudulent or an abuse of rights, for instance, a marriage of convenience?
  3. Does a Member State breach the requirement of Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC when delays in processing are due to background and security checks on applicants coming from third world countries for security purposes?
  4. Does a Member State breach the requirement of Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC when delays in processing are due to a “a sudden and unanticipated surge in such applications coming from certain third countries which are thought to present real security concerns”?

To the above questions, the ECJ has made a decision regarding this matter.

“Since, however, all of the visa applications at issue in the main proceedings were the subject of negative decisions, which were contested by means of court actions which were not upheld, and since the referring court has noted that the Court’s answer can no longer benefit the applicants in the main proceedings, as is clear from paragraphs 18 and 20 of the present order, the dispute in the main proceedings has become devoid of purpose and, consequently, an answer to the questions referred appears to be no longer necessary.”

Since all of the applications in question had already been determined, the ECJ deferred from making a decision in this matter. Essentially, the ECJ determined that issuing a decision in this case would no longer be beneficial to the applicants and therefore there is no point in pursuing the matter further. Thus, the issue of how to interpret Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC in regard to visa delays remains unresolved.

Read more about visa delays in our full blog here.

Read the full decision in this matter  here.

MINISTER RULED TO HAVE BEEN INCORRECTLY APPLYING EU LAW RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE SAME HOUSEHOLD

The High Court has issued a very important ruling in Shishu & anor -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 566, which provides that the Minister for Justice has incorrectly applied EU law as it relates to the issue of residence cards to dependent family members and members of the same household of an EU citizen who is exercising his or her right to free movement in the State.

This case was brought by two brothers, the first, a naturalised British citizen living and working in Ireland and the second, a citizen of Bangladesh who claims that he lived with and as a dependant of his EU citizen brother in the UK before his brother moved to Ireland to live and work and he travelled to join him in the State.

An application had been made to the Minister for a residence card to be issued to the second brother on the basis that he is the dependant of and a member of the household of the first within the meaning of Regulation 5.1 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015, which states the following:

Permission for permitted family member to enter State

  1. (1) This paragraph applies to a person who—

(a) irrespective of his or her nationality, is a member of the family (other than a qualifying family member) of a Union citizen to whom paragraph (2) applies and who in the country from which the person has come—

(i) is a dependant of the Union citizen,

(ii) is a member of the household of the Union citizen, or

(iii) on the basis of serious health grounds strictly requires the personal care of the Union citizen, or

(b) is the partner with whom a Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested.

This application was refused in October 2018, with the Minister citing insufficient documentation evidencing the applicant’s dependency on his brother and his membership of the same household in the UK prior to the applicant’s travel to Ireland.

The Judge however found that in this case the documentary evidence provided as to membership of the same household in the initial application was ‘strikingly comprehensive’ stating:

(ii) the court has never previously seen an application of the type now in issue in which such an abundance of evidence was provided as to a particular point.

The Judge went on to state that the Minister in his finding that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence regarding other tenants living at their UK address, the relationship between the applicant and other tenants and as to the length of time the brothers had been living at this address, seemed to go beyond the requirements of the applicable legislation.

Mr Justice Barrett ruled that in the Minister’s decision determining that insufficient documentary evidence had been provided establishing dependency and membership of the same household, the Minister had erred in law in his application of the subsections of section 5 above and had acted unreasonably and/or in breach of EU law and/or the Regulations.

The Judge also ruled that the Minister had acted unreasonably and/or in breach of fair procedures by refusing the application without having outlined the type of documents his office required in evidence of the applicant’s dependency and membership of the same household. The judge criticised the lack of transparency inherent in the ‘closeted’ way in which the Minister is operating the application and decision-making process, one which he found leaves applicants ‘in the blind’ when it comes to trying to satisfy the Minister’s standards of proof.

In this regard the judgment states:

  1. (3) Did the Respondent act unreasonably and/or in breach of fair procedures in concluding that the second applicant had failed to submit satisfactory evidence that he was a dependent of the first applicant and/or a member of his household, without adopting procedures which would have enabled the second applicant to know what evidence he was required to adduce in order to establish same?

  2. Yes. The court does not consider that a approach by a decision-maker which amounts, in effect, to ‘Put in an application, I will not tell you even at the most general level, not even by way of non-binding guidance, what type of material I am looking for, but I will let you know if I do not see it’ is reasonable or entails fairness of procedure. It is unreasonable and unfair that the Minister should know what, at a general level, he is looking for when it comes to assessing applications generally, but will give no sense to applicants as to what it is that he is looking for, i.e. the unreasonableness/unfairness flows not from the Directive or the Regulations per se but from the closeted manner in which the Minister has elected to discharge his obligations to the detriment of applicants who, as a consequence of his approach, are unfailingly operating to some extent ‘in the blind’ when making an application such as that at issue here.

On the issue of membership of the same household, the Judge highlighted that Ireland, as an EU member state, is obliged under Directive 2004/38/EC to facilitate the entry and lawful residence of members of the household of an EU Citizen exercising his or her right to free movement in the State.

Article 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC provides the following:

Beneficiaries

  1. This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them.
  2. Without prejudice to any right to free movement and residence the persons concerned may have in their own right, the host Member State shall, in accordance with its national legislation, facilitate entry and residence for the following persons:

(a) any other family members, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under the definition in point 2 of Article 2 who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence, or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen;

(b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested.

The host Member State shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to these people.

The Judge on this point noted that the term ‘household’ is not defined in the 2004 Directive or the 2015 Regulations and that it is therefore required to be given its ordinary meaning in the English language and be applied uniformly by EU members states. The Judge however, in reference to an observation of the Court of Justice of the EU, goes on to state that within the context of Article 3.2 of the 2004 Directive it in fact seems that a wider meaning is attributed to the term ‘household’ than that of its ordinary English language meaning.

The Judge held that the Minister in his decision in this case seemed to interpret ‘household’ as referring to a single person/group regularly residing together in the same accommodation and sharing catering arrangements, and did not consider the term to apply to a single dwelling which may contain multiple households not sharing living spaces or catering arrangements.

The judgment states in this regard:

(vi) even if one has regard solely to the English language meaning of “household”, that term is typically understood to embrace [a] a single person or group of people who regularly reside together in the same accommodation and who share the same catering arrangements; However, [b] it is of course possible for a single dwelling to contain multiple households if meals or living spaces are not shared. It seems to the court, with respect, that the Minister in his reasoning has had regard solely to conception [a] of what comprises a household and no regard to conception [b].

The Judge cancelled the Minister’s refusal of the application as a result of the court’s findings and directed that the application be reconsidered by the Minister.

The full judgment can be read here.

UPDATE ON CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING THE JONES RULING

Further to our recent blog on the High Court’s findings in the case of Jones v The Minister for Justice and Equality, which can be read in full here, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service of the Department of Justice have published a notice addressing the judgment and the concerns it has raised.

The Court had found in Jones that the law governing eligibility for naturalization as an Irish citizen requires ‘continuous residence’ in the year prior to application and that ‘continuous residence’ is defined as per the generally accepted understanding and dictionary definition of ‘continuous’, with the implication, therefore, that even one day’s absence from Ireland in the year prior to application will break the continuous residence requirement and render a person ineligible to apply for naturalization.

This judgment has understandably caused deep concern and worry for many and in response the INIS has now issued a statement providing the following:

“We are aware that the judgment in this case has given cause for concern and may have been upsetting for many people who are in the citizenship process. We want to assure you that we are taking all appropriate steps to remedy the situation as quickly as possible. The best interests of applicants and future applicants are foremost in our considerations.”

For those planning on submitting an application or who already have an application pending, the Department goes on to confirm that it is continuing to receive and process applications as usual and it emphasises that that they are not advising current applicants or future applicants to cancel any current or future travel plans in light of the judgment.

The Department advises that anyone who is planning on applying for naturalization continue preparing their application, collecting the necessary documentation and submit this together with a complete application form, stating that once they have formulated a solution to address the implications of the ruling they will be in touch with applicants should any further information be required.

The Department confirm that preparations are still going ahead as planned for the upcoming Citizenship Ceremony in September.

Importantly, the Department also state that they “do not believe that this ruling has consequences for anyone who has already obtained citizenship under the Act”. This will hopefully come as a reassurance to many who are concerned that their citizenship may be in question following this judgment.

Finally, the Department confirms that they are working to find a solution to address the ruling as a matter of urgent priority and that they will post on their website as updates occur.

We will be posting about any further developments from the Department as they arise and should you have concerns about your case in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact us.

The INIS statement can be read in full here.

A QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE USE OF DOMESTIC DEPORTATION LAW FOR FAMILY MEMBERS OF EU CITIZENS – CHENCHOOLIAH

Regulation 20 to Regulation 22 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 implement the Minister’s powers for removal in accordance with Council Directive 2004/38/EC.

The Regulations direct that the Minister may make a removal order against a Union citizen or their family member where the person is no longer entitled to be in the State in accordance with the 2015 Regulations.

However, in practice, the Minister has been invoking the domestic deportation procedure under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 as amended in the circumstances of family members who fall outside the remit of the 2015 Regulations.

The Minister’s approach to utilise the domestic deportation process for family members who have fallen outside the remit of the Regulations, has the effect that the proposed deportee looses certain rights and entitlements available under the 2015 Regulations. For example, a deportation order under domestic law is indefinite in duration while a removal order under the 2015 Regulations expires once the removal has been carried out.

The Minister’s actions have been challenged in a number of judicial review proceedings, the lead of which is the case of Nalini Chenchooliah v the Minister for Justice and Equality, Case C-94/18. In this case, a preliminary reference was made from the Irish High Court to the Court of Justice to seek clarification on the State’s entitlement to use domestic deportation legislation over the removal procedures envisaged by Directive 2004/38.

The questions referred were as follows:

Where the spouse of an EU citizen who has exercised free movement rights under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC has been refused a right of residence under Article 7 on the basis that the EU citizen in question was not, or was no longer, exercising EU Treaty Rights in the host Member State concerned, and where it is proposed that the spouse should be expelled from that Member State, must that expulsion be pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Directive, or does it fall within the competence of the national law of the Member State?

If the answer to the above question is that the expulsion must be made pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, must the expulsion be made pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VI of the Directive, and particularly Articles 27 and 28 thereof, or may the Member State, in such circumstances, rely on other provisions of the Directive, in particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof?

Ms Chenchooliah argued that as a person who at one time, on account of her marriage to an EU citizen, she previously had a temporary right of residence under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38, and therefore she continues to fall within the scope of that directive and can therefore be expelled from the territory of the host Member State only in compliance with the rules and safeguards provided for in that directive.
It is interesting to note the opinion of Advocate General Szpunar of the 21st May 2019, in in which the Advocate General took the same position as Ms Chenchooliah;

“Therefore, in the light of the foregoing considerations, I am of the view that, since the discontinuation or expiry of a right of residence forms part of the final stage of the exercise of freedom of movement, the expulsion from the territory of the host Member State of a third-country national spouse of a Union citizen continues to fall within the scope of Directive 2004/38, in particular Article 15 thereof, where that citizen has ceased to exercise his freedom of movement in the host Member State by returning to the Member State of which he is a national.”

The case was heard by the Court of Justice on the 15th January 2019 and judgement is currently awaited.

Should the Court of Justice concur with the Advocate General and find in favour of Ms Chenchooliah’s position, it would be appear that many deportation orders issued by the Minister in recent years will be unlawful and in breach of the EU treaty rights law.

PERVAIS V MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY [2019] IEHC 403 AND THE DEFINITION OF A ‘DURABLE RELATIONSHIP’

The High Court has delivered judgement in a case that may have a significant impact on applications from the partners of EU citizens under Directive 2004/38/EC and the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015,

Partners can fall within the category of “permitted family member”.

In the Directive beneficiaries in this category are described in Article 3(2) as the partner “with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested”.

This definition can be found at reg.5(1)(b) of the Regulations.

In this case the Court asked the question: What is a “durable relationship”?

The Court notes:
The phrase is not defined in the Citizens’ Rights Directive, most likely so as to allow the various member states to proceed by reference to concepts of relationships/durability that suit their respective mores and traditions.

The Court was critical that the Minister has not tried to define or elaborate on this definition by way of Ministerial guidance. The Court found that an untenable situation has arisen whereby no-one (applicants, officials or indeed the court) quite knows what a “durable relationship” is.

It has emerged in the proceedings that a “durable relationship”, as conceived by the Minister involves a ‘sort of’ two-year benchmark, however a lower timeframe can be applied if that is considered to be merited on the evidence in any one case… though quite when the evidence will be (or is) considered to justify the application of a lower timeframe and how a particular lower timeframe is settled upon is entirely unclear.

The Judge went through the EU1A application form and guidance note in some detail (this is the application form on which a permitted family member makes an application for an EU residence card). The Court noted that as the concept of “durable relationship” is not defined, asking someone to provide “Evidence of a durable relationship” is largely, if not completely, meaningless.

The Court also held that the Minister had allowed a confusion to arise between the concept of a durable and attested relationship and the conception of “cohabitation”.

The Court found in this respect:
“… it seems to the court that the concept of “cohabitation” has skewed the Minister’s approach to such applications as are made under reg.5, not least in the suggestion that “tenancy agreements, utility bills” would be suitable evidence of “cohabitation”. Perhaps they would, but reg.5(1)(a) refers to a “durable relationship”, not a relationship of cohabitation.”

The Court outlined a number of scenarios where a durable and attested relationship might exist both with or without cohabitation and made a number of remarks as to the approach of the Minister to require evidence and documents of cohabitation.

The Court answered a number of questions in concluding its judgment, most notably:

Q2. (i) Has Directive 2004/38/EU been adequately transposed into domestic law by the respondents?
(ii) Have the respondents infringed the principle of effectiveness by failing to provide any legislative definition of the concept of “durable relationship duly attested” or any legislative framework/guidance for the test to be applied and the proofs required?

No to (i).

Yes to (ii), save that the court considers that a definition could also be provided in non-legislative guidance (which to this time this has not occurred). The manner of transposition yields the various legal issues described herein and the principle of effectiveness has been breached.

It will be interesting to see how the Minister deals with the Court’s judgement in this matter. It appears that in the Court’s view it would be open to the Minister to deal with this issue by way of statute/ amendment to the regulations or alternatively by way of Ministerial guidelines.

We hope that in light of this judgement the Minister goes on to provide a clear definition of a “durable relationship, duly attested” so that there is more clarity for EU citizens and their partners as to their eligibility for an EU fam residence card.

The full judgment can be read here.