KP Turkey, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 concerning the “standstill” clause in the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. The appellant, a Turkish national, was denied indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK despite meeting employment conditions under Article 6(1). The court held that Article 13 does not apply to workers who already have rights under Article 6(1) and does not cover conditions for settlement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Judgment
Lord Justice Richards :
This appeal concerns the scope and interpretation of the “standstill” clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, adopted by the Association Council under the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement of 12 September 1963.
The appellant is a 34 year old Turkish national who has been lawfully present in the United Kingdom at all material times as an employed worker pursuant to the Association Agreement and Decision No 1/80. After four years’ employment as a Turkish worker he applied for indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”). On 3 December 2011 the Secretary of State responded to the application by granting him three years’ further leave to remain, with an entitlement to undertake any type of work for any employer. Asked why the appellant had not been granted ILR, the Secretary of State replied on 13 February 2012 that leave had been granted under Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 which contained no provision for settlement, and that an applicant who continued to meet the requirements of Article 6(1) would be granted three years’ leave on each subsequent application.
The appellant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the refusal of ILR. Various grounds were advanced but the only one still live before us is the contention that he is entitled to ILR by virtue of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. Permission to apply was refused in the Administrative Court, first by Haddon-Cave J on the papers and then by Mr Simon Picken QC, siting as a deputy High Court Judge, on an oral renewal. Permission to appeal to this court against the deputy judge’s decision on the Article 13 issue was granted by Gloster LJ.
Although the appeal relates strictly to whether the appellant has an arguable case for judicial review, we were invited by both counsel to approach the matter on a basis that would enable us to reach a substantive determination of the main legal issues between the parties. We were told that a number of cases in the Administrative Court have been stayed behind this one.
The deputy judge indicated that if he had taken a different view on the legal issues he would in any event have refused permission to apply for judicial review on the ground of delay. Mr Lask informed us at the outset of the hearing, however, that the Secretary of State no longer pursued the point on delay.
The Association Agreement and related instruments
The aim of the Association Agreement (which was published in English in OJ C113/1, 24