Immigration Workers. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the first indent of of Decision No 1-80 of the Association Council conferred a right of residence in the host member state on a family member of a Turkish worker, who had been authorised to enter that member state, for the purposes of family reunification, and who, from his entry into the territory of that member state, had lived with that Turkish worker, even if the period of at least three years during which the latter was duly registered as belonging to the labour force did not immediately follow the arrival of the family member concerned in the host member state, but was subsequent to it.
Immigration Deportation. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Lithuanian national's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's service upon him of a notice preventing him from working in the United Kingdom while he was on bail pending judicial review proceedings and an appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to deport him. The restriction on employment had not been in breach of European Union or domestic law.
Immigration Spouses, children and other dependent relatives. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, adjourned the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and invited the Attorney General to appoint an advocate to the court. The appeal gave rise to matters which deserved to be investigated more fully than would be possible at a hearing where both parties had taken a virtually identical view, in particular as to whether Kareem (Proxy marriages - EU law) ()had been wrongly decided.
Family proceedings Adoption. The Family Division granted the applicant's applications for a declaration recognising her adoption of a child, N, in India, and for an adoption order in respect of N. The court held, among other things, that ReValentine's Settlement[ remained good law and binding upon judges at first instance. Accordingly, recognition at common law of a foreign adoption, whether the question arose in a court or elsewhere, depended upon, and only upon, the four criteria identified in Re Valentine's Settlement. Applying settled law, the court held that English law recognised N's adoption by the applicant in India and that it was manifestly in N's best interests, currently and throughout her life, that the adoption order be made.
European Union Citizenship. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 6 of the Treaty on the European Union and art 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be interpreted as meaning that the accession of a state to the European Union did not preclude another member state imposing a criminal penalty on persons who had committed, before the accession, the offence of facilitation of illegal immigration for nationals of the first state.
European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that: (i) art 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which required a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he had a criminal record where he was the parent of a minor child who was a Union citizen and who was his dependant and resided with him in the host member state; and (ii) art 20 TFEU also precluded the same legislation.
Immigration Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against her unsuccessful application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to refuse her application under the destitute domestic violence concession. The court found that the Secretary of State had to look at whether an applicant could satisfy the terms of sections DVILR and E-DVILR of the Immigration Rules without construing them by reference to the concession. Further, 'partner' in para1.3 of E-DVILR had the narrow meaning ascribed to it in para1.2(a).
Immigration Deportation. The Supreme Court,in considering an appeal regarding enhanced protection for European Union citizens under art28(3)(a) of Parliament and and the right of permanent residence within arts16 and 28(2) of that Directive, gave its provisional views on the appeal and referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
Immigration European Economic Area (EEA) national. The Administrative Court held that the defendant Secretary of State had acted lawfully in having refused to grant the second claimant Kenyan national a European Economic Area family permit and having refused to grant her entry clearance to the United Kingdom because there had been insufficient evidence to show that the claimants had fulfilled the requirements of European Union and domestic law.
R (on the application of MA (Pakistan)) and others v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and others
Immigration Indefinite leave to remain. The Court of Appeal heard six cases together raising a common issue of the correct test of reasonableness which should be applied when determining whether or not it was reasonable to remove a child from the United Kingdom once he or she had been resident there for seven years.