Ahmad v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves Mr. Ahmad, a Pakistani national, who has lived in the UK with his Danish wife since 2006. The legal issue revolves around the requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance (CSIC) for the purposes of obtaining permanent residency under EU law. The court upheld the Secretary of State’s decision denying a permanent residence card as Mr. Ahmad’s wife did not possess CSIC while she was a student, despite having access to the NHS. The court ruled that access to the NHS does not fulfill the CSIC requirement, which must be strictly complied with under EU law, and that this requirement is neither discriminatory nor disproportionate.
Judgment
Lady Justice Arden :
An EEA citizen, that is, a national of one of the member states of the EU or of one of the countries in the European Economic Area (“EEA”), has valuable rights under the EU treaties, including the right to move to other states of the EU, and reside there. That right is also granted to his or her family members, including a spouse. The spouse may, if the EEA citizen fulfilled the required conditions , obtain a permanent residence card in the EEA state (“host state”) to which she moves. The question in this appeal concerns the required condition that the EEA citizen should have had comprehensive sickness insurance cover (“CSIC”).
The appellant, Mr Shakil Ahmad, is a Pakistani national who has been living with his wife, Mrs Ahmad, a Danish citizen and therefore an EEA citizen, in the UK since August 2006. Mrs Ahmad entered the UK to exercise her treaty rights as a worker from April 2006. Mr Ahmad lawfully entered the UK to join her. Mrs Ahmad then ceased to be a worker. She was a student from about January 2009 to about July 2012. As such, she was required to have, but did not have, CSIC.
This follows from Article 7(1)(d) of the Directive 2004/38/EC (“the Directive”):
“Article 7
1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if they:
“….(c) – are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course of study, including vocational training; and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence; or…”
The provisions of the Directive have been implemented in the UK by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (‘the 2006 Regulations’). As the 2006 Regulations have to be interpreted so far as possible in conformity with the Directive (and no-one suggests that that is not possible in this case), the court has to interpret the relevant provisions of the Directive. In the circumstances I put a summary of the relevant provisions of the 2006 Regulations in the