Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v HD (CHB) (Second interim decision)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Ward |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 148 (AAC),[2018] UKUT 148 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | European Union law,European Union law - free movement,European Union law - references to European Court,Ward,C |
| Date | 26 April 2018 |
| Published date | 08 May 2018 |
CF/393/2016 HMRC v HD (CHB) [2018] UKUT 148 (AAC)
(Second interim decision)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No CF/393/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARD
Attendances:
For the Appellant: Ms Galina Ward, counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Adrian Berry (with him Mr Desmond Rutledge),
counsel
Second Interim Decision: A question substantially in the following form is
referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267
TFEU.
In circumstances where an EU citizen who is a national of one
Member State (i) is present in another Member State (the host
Member State), (ii) has been active as a self-employed person within
the meaning of Article 49 TFEU in the host Member State, (iii) was
paid a maternity allowance from May 2014 (a point at which she
considered herself less able to work on account of pregnancy), (iv)
has been found to have ceased to be in genuine and effective self-
employed activity from July 2014, (v) gave birth in August 2014, and
(vi) did not return to genuine and effective self-employed activity in
the period following the birth and prior to claiming jobseekers’
allowance as a jobseeker in February 2015:
Must Article 49 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that such a
person, who ceases self-employed activity in circumstances
where there are physical constraints in the late stages of
pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, retains the status of
being self-employed, within the meaning of that Article, provided
she returns to economic activity or seeking work within a
reasonable period after the birth of her child?
Within one month of the date of the letter issuing this decision, counsel are to
provide the Upper Tribunal with a draft of the proposed reference, agreed so
far as possible and marked so as to show any points of disagreement
remaining.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This is the continuation of the test case litigation in the Upper Tribunal
seeking to determine whether a woman who has been self-employed before
an interruption due to pregnancy, childbirth and its aftermath, can rely on the
same principles as the Court of Justice of the European Union declared in C-
To continue reading
Request your trial