Comments on: A quick update from the ECJ http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/10/a-quick-update-from-the-ecj/ Housing law news and comment Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:01:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: J http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/10/a-quick-update-from-the-ecj/#comment-252 J Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:16:07 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3565#comment-252 Ah - I'd missed the AGs opinion in Texiera. Thanks Stephen. Ah – I’d missed the AGs opinion in Texiera. Thanks Stephen.

]]> By: Stephen O'Neill http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/10/a-quick-update-from-the-ecj/#comment-251 Stephen O'Neill Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:27:05 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3565#comment-251 The AG in Teixera v London Borough of Lambeth went much further: (1) Where a child of a Union citizen is in education in a Member State in which that Union citizen is or has been employed as a migrant worker, the parent who is the child's primary carer enjoys a right of residence in the host Member State that is derived from Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68. (2) The right of residence of that parent is not subject to a requirement that that parent should have sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover. Importantly, (3) The right of residence of that parent is not subject to a requirement that that parent should have been employed as a migrant worker in the host Member State when the child first entered education. It is sufficient for the child to have installed itself in the host Member State during the exercise by a parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that State. (4) The right of residence of that parent ends when the child reaches the age of majority, unless the circumstances of the individual case are such that it is appropriate for the child to be looked after personally by that parent beyond that point so as to ensure that the child is able to pursue and complete its studies. http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2009/C48008_O.html The AG in Teixera v London Borough of Lambeth went much further:

(1) Where a child of a Union citizen is in education in a Member State in which that Union citizen is or has been employed as a migrant worker, the parent who is the child’s primary carer enjoys a right of residence in the host Member State that is derived from Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68.

(2) The right of residence of that parent is not subject to a requirement that that parent should have sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover.

Importantly,

(3) The right of residence of that parent is not subject to a requirement that that parent should have been employed as a migrant worker in the host Member State when the child first entered education. It is sufficient for the child to have installed itself in the host Member State during the exercise by a parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that State.

(4) The right of residence of that parent ends when the child reaches the age of majority, unless the circumstances of the individual case are such that it is appropriate for the child to be looked after personally by that parent beyond that point so as to ensure that the child is able to pursue and complete its studies.

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2009/C48008_O.html

]]> By: Marcin Tustin http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/10/a-quick-update-from-the-ecj/#comment-250 Marcin Tustin Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:57:13 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3565#comment-250 Well, I think the statistic that the court usually follow's the A-G's advice is a little misleading: that is because a lot of cases are referred to the ECJ where the law, and its application, are actually quite clear, and the A-G sets out his answer on the basis of established law. I think the A-G's reasoning will fly, in this case, but this isn't clear and settled law. Well, I think the statistic that the court usually follow’s the A-G’s advice is a little misleading: that is because a lot of cases are referred to the ECJ where the law, and its application, are actually quite clear, and the A-G sets out his answer on the basis of established law.

I think the A-G’s reasoning will fly, in this case, but this isn’t clear and settled law.

]]>