R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gustaaf Desiderius Antonissen [QBD]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1991 |
| Date | 26 November 1991 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Popplewell J
R Plender QC and D Bethehem for the applicant
I Ashford-Thom for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte AntonissenUNK [1989] 2 CMLR 957.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte AntonissenECAS (EC: Case C-292/89), The Times 27 February 1991.
EC national Deportation convicted of serious criminal offence Secretary of State initiated deportation proceedings applicant had sought work in United Kingdom had never obtained work extent of entitlement to protection from deportation under EC Directives. EEC Treaty art. 48: Directive 64/221 arts. 2, 3: Directive 68/360: HC 169 paras. 3(5)(b), 140, 143.
Interpretation EC Directives whether court permitted to consider minutes of relevant meeting of Council of Ministers in construing a Council Directive.
Immigration rules EC worker whether the provisions of the rules were contrary to the provisions of Community law. HC 169 paras. 140, 143.
The applicant was a Belgian national who had entered the United Kingdom in 1984. He sought, but did not find work. He was convicted of drug offences and the Secretary of State decided to initiate deportation proceedings against him pursuant to s. 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act. An appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected his claim that he should be regarded as an EC worker, enjoying a protection against deportation. On application for judicial review questions were referred by the court to the European Court. Following the determination of those questions, the court considered the application on its merits.
Held
1. The European Court had determined that the time limit in the immigration rules imposed on those seeking work was not contrary to the relevant Directives unless the applicant provided evidence that he was continuing to seek work and had a genuine chance of securing it.
2. The European Court had also determined that in interpreting a Directive it was not permissible to have reference to the related meetings of the EC Council.
3. On the basis of the applicant's history the court concluded that while he had continued to seek work he had no genuine chance of securing it.
4. He could not therefore, at the relevant date, claim the protection of the Directives on the free movement of workers.
5. In its discretion, the court would dismiss the application.
Popplewell J: On 3 June 1988 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against a decision to make a deportation order. The applicant seeks an order to quash that determination and also a rehearing now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AG and Others (EEA-Jobseeker-Self-Sufficient Person-Proof) Germany [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal]
...jobseeking history vis-a-vis the labour market and his chances of being employed: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Antonissen[1992] Imm AR 196 applied (paras 48, 49 and 52); (4) the burden of proof to substantiate any EEA right of admission or residence was on the Claimants by, for ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2007-08-03, [2007] UKAIT 75 (AG and others (EEA - jobseeker, self-sufficient person - proof))
...date, claim the protection of the Directives on the free movement of workers (R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Antonissen [1992] Imm AR 196. 46. In Antonissen and a number of other ECJ judgments, the point is emphasised that the concept of “worker” within the meaning of Article 48 o......
-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CJSA 2042 2015
...chance in this context does not appear to have ever been the subject of a ruling. When Mr Antonissen’s case returned to the High Court ([1992] Imm AR 196 at 199–200), Popplewell J observed there was “a total absence of any evidence that he had or has had…a genuine chance of being engaged” a......
-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MB and others (JSA)
...chance in this context does not appear to have ever been the subject of a ruling. When Mr Antonissen’s case returned to the High Court ([1992] Imm AR 196 at 199–200), Popplewell J observed there was “a total absence of any evidence that he had or has had…a genuine chance of being engaged” a......