Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 126 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CIS 826 2009
Appellant:	Blazej and Miskovic
Respondent:	SSWP
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	09/11/2009
Date Added:	05/05/2010
Main Category:	Residence and presence conditions
Main Subcategory:	right to reside
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Court of Appeal decision reported as [2012] AACR 11 European Union Law – free movement of workers – application and interpretation of the worker registration scheme The claimants were respectively nationals of the Czech Republic (M) and Poland (B). These states, together with six other states that acceded to the EU on 1 May 2004, are known as the A8 States. The Accession Treaty relating to those States permitted derogation from the rights of freedom of movement within the Community which the United Kingdom gave effect to in the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 (the 2004 Regulations). The 2004 Regulations established a registration scheme under which workers from A8 States who wished to work were required to register with the authorities. There were exceptions in relation to certain persons who had been legally working in the UK on or before 30 April 2004. Both claimants had been granted admission to the United Kingdom before 1 May 2004, M as an asylum seeker and B under a temporary visa which had expired, after her marriage to a UK national, and their subsequent separation. Both had worked for certain periods after 1 May 2004 and both had claimed jobseeker’s allowance. Claims for income support then made by both claimants were rejected on the basis that they were “persons from abroad” fixed with a nil applicable amount for the purposes of calculating their entitlement under the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. “Persons from abroad” are defined as those not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland and a person is not to be treated as habitually resident in a territory unless he has a right to reside there. Under the Income Support Regulations certain categories of persons are not to be considered as “persons from abroad” including workers for the purposes of Council Directive No 2004/38/EC and those treated as “workers” for the purpose of the definition of “qualified person” in regulation 6(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (the 2006 Regulations). The concept of “qualified person” was modified in relation to A8 nationals by the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004 (the 2004 Regulations). Workers from the A8 States were required to register employment, and would only be treated as a “worker”, and therefore be a “qualified person” with a right to reside, during a period in which they were working for an authorised employer ie in registered employment. Under regulation 2 of the 2004 Regulations a person ceased to be an accession State worker requiring registration, and was in the same position as other EU nationals, after 12 months continuous registered employment, or if they had already been, or had begun, legally working in the UK before 30 April 2004 for a continuous period of 12 months. Under regulation 2(7) of the 2004 Regulations a person was legally working if he had leave to remain and work in the UK. Appeals by M to an appeal tribunal and by B to the First-tier Tribunal were unsuccessful. Both appealed to the Upper Tribunal which found that the lower tribunals had not erred in law. The claimants appealed further to the Court of Appeal. Held, dismissing both appeals, that: 1. the circumstances under which both claimants worked fell outside the definition of “legal employment” under regulation 2(7) of the 2004 Regulations; Case C-192/89 Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1990] ECR I-3461 applied (paragraphs 82 to 90); 2. the provisions of the 2004 Regulations were not disproportionate: Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67 considered (paragraphs 46 to 49).
Decision(s) to Download:	CIS 0826 2009-01.doc [2012] AACR 11bv.doc.rtf