R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Vitale ; R v Same, ex parte Do Amaral
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1996 |
| Date | 19 January 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Staughton, Lord Justice Ward and Sir Ralph Gibson
Immigration - right of residence - EU citizens
Citizens of member states of the European Union did not have an unqualified right of residence in any other member state as a result of article 8a of the EC Treaty, as inserted by article GC of the Treaty on European Union (1992 OJ C224).
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment dismissing Vittorio Vitale's appeal against the refusal of Mr Justice Judge in the Queen's Bench Division (The Times April 18, 1995) to quash the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in February 1994 that he was not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.
The appellant was a citizen of Italy who entered the UK in June 1993. He received income support after claiming that he was seeking work.
The secretary of state had informed the appellant that as he was not seeking work with a genuine chance of obtaining it, he was in the UK in a non-economic capacity and had become a burden on public funds and was therefore not lawfully resident in the UK under European law and should make arrangements to leave the country. The effect of the decision was to end the appellant's right to income support.
Article 8a of the EC Treaty, as amended by article GC of the Treaty on European Union, the Maastricht Treaty, provides: "(1) Every citizen of the union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect."
Mr Peter Duffy and Mr Paul Stanley for the appellant; Mr Richard Plender, QC, for the secretary of state.
LORD JUSTICE STAUGHTON, giving the judgment of the court, said that the issue was whether the Maastricht Treaty conferred a directly effective right to reside in the United Kingdom even when the appellant was neither employed nor seeking work with genuine prospects of obtaining it and when he did not have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the UK during the period of his residence.
The EC Treaty had had economic unity as its purpose. Accordingly a right of residence was originally granted only to the economically active nationals of member states under articles 48 (freedom of movement for work), 52 (freedom...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ali (Zackaria Muhidin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...not make sense. 23 Since oral argument was concluded in this case, the court has become aware of the decision in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Vitale [1996] All ER (EC) 461. That was a decision of this court dealing with what was the then equivalent of Article 1......
-
Krasniqi v. Chief Adjudication Officer and Anor. CIS 16992 1996
...on free movement appears to be that adopted by this court in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Vitale [1996] 2 CMLR 587, in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Mr. Nicol further argued that the case law demonstrated that it does not have to be the applicant for benefit......
-
Abdirahman and Ullusow v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 657 CPC 2920 2005
...from a number of other decisions of the Court of Appeal, notably R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Vitale [1996] All ER (EC) 461, Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 484 (at [21]–[22]), and W (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Depart......
-
Thomas (Tina Lee) Application
...view of Article 8(a) was taken by a differently constituted Court of Appeal in Vitale v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] IMM AR 275 and that court also rejected a request for a reference under Article 177 noting that the House of Lords had refused leave to appeal in Phull’s......