The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled an EU national who becomes a British citizen does not lose the right to have a non-EU spouse live with them in the UK.
The court ruled the UK Home Office was mistaken in denying a dual British-Spanish citizen the right to bring her Algerian husband with her to Britain.
immigration solicitors in London, migrant rights groups, and barristers told the Guardian that the ruling will have strong implications for EU nationals who are applying for British passports who are married or engaged to non-EU nationals, for example, someone from the UAE. One stated:
“The court has held that the UK has been wrong to refuse to recognise free movement rights for all those EU citizens who have been naturalising as British following the Brexit referendum. After Brexit, though, all those rights will be lost unless an agreement is reached to retain them.”
The details of the case
Toufik Lounes, an Algerian national, entered the UK on a six-month visa in 2010. He failed to leave the country, making him an illegal overstayer. His Spanish/British citizen wife, Garcia Ormazabal came to the UK as a student in 1996 and has been working full-time since 2004.
The Home Office argued that Mr Lounes would have to be sponsored in accordance with the UK spouse visa requirements, including the minimum income threshold of £18,600 because Ms Ormazabal’s rights under the freedom of movement directive were lost when she became a British citizen. Therefore, Mr Lounes could not apply for EU permanent residency.
The case was referred to the ECJ last year. The court spent five months deliberating the decision.
The court concluded that although the European directive governing Ms Ormazabal’s rights did stop governing her residence in the UK once she had obtained British Citizenship, Mr Lounes had a “derived right” thanks to the freedom of movement rules. The ECJ stated that for the freedom of movement principle to be effective, EU nationals must be able to move between states with the right to build a family wherever they are.
The ECJ said denying this right “would amount to treating Ms Ormazabal in the same way as a British citizen who had never left the UK, disregarding the fact that she has exercised her freedom of movement by settling there and that she has retained her nationality of origin.”
OTS Solicitors is one of the most respected immigration law firms in London and is highly ranked in the Legal 500 for immigration and Human Rights. By making an appointment with one of our immigration solicitors, you can be assured of receiving some of the best legal advice available in the UK today.
If you require Immigration law advice, please phone our London office on 0207 936 9960.
For the best expert legal advice and outcome on your UK immigration application, contact OTS immigration solicitors on 020 7936 9960 or contact us online.
We are one of the UK’s top firms for immigration solicitors and civil liberties lawyers. We can advise on a broad range of immigration issues including Appeals and Refusals, Judicial Reviews, Spouse Visas, Student Visas, Work Permit Visas, Indefinite Leave to Remain, EEA Applications, Asylum and Human Rights, British Citizenship, All types of visas, Business Immigration Visas, Entrepreneur Visas and Investor Visas.
Our top immigration solicitors and lawyers are here to assist you.
Disclaimer: The information and comments on this page/site is made available free of charge and for educational and information purposes only. The information and comments do not amount to and are not intended to be adopted as legal advice to any individual or company. The use of this site should not be a substitute for specific legal advice, which we ask you to see our contact page or call our solicitors on 0207 936 9960.
By using this site you understand that there is no solicitor and client relationship between you/your company and the site owners or the firm. We make every effort to keep the published articles up-to-date and accurate, however the law changes very rapidly and the older the articles on this site, the more likely that the views in it have changed with the development of the law.
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November, 2017