Pregnant women ought to be granted their worker status and social benefits

Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The AIRE Centre represented Jessy Saint Prix in the case against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.  Jessy Saint Prix, a french nationalist who came to the UK in 2006 worked as a teaching assistant for 11 months before finding a job in a nursery school. Jessy then became pregnant. During her sixth month of pregnancy, Jessy found it difficult to continue with her job so started looking for work that was more suitable for her during her pregnancy. During this time, Jessy applied for income support but was rejected by the Department for Work and Pensions who claimed that Jessy had lost her worker’ status in the UK.


The case was taken to the Court of Justice European Union who stated that a women who stops working for an appropriate amount of time surrounding her pregnancy should still be considered a ‘worker’ under EU Laws.


Being questioned at the airport under Terrorism Act is against EU civil rights

Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] UKSC 49 (22 July 2015)

The appellant was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 which requires a person in her position to answer questions asked by police officers, immigration officers and customs officers for the purpose there set out. She refused to answer the questions and was subsequently convicted of the offence of wilfully failing to do so, contrary to paragraph 18 of that Schedule. Her appeal against her conviction raises the issue whether Schedule 7 is compatible with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 5 (right to liberty) and 6 (privilege against self-incrimination).


The European Court of Human Rights judged that the Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with articles 5, 6 and 8 of ECHR.


Culpability of trafficked people can be diminished or even extinguished

L & Ors v The Children's Commissioner for England & Anor [2013] EWCA Crim 991

Four people, three of them children, were trafficked to the UK and forced to commit crimes by their traffickers. The question is whether issues of age, trafficking and exploitation lead the court to disagree with the decision to prosecute.


The culpability of any victim of trafficking may be significantly diminished, and in some cases effectively extinguished, not merely because of age (always a relevant factor in the case of a child defendant) but because no realistic alternative was available to the exploited victim but to comply with the dominant force of another individual, or group of individuals.


Imprisonment during the last 10 years in the UK does not necessarily preclude your right to permanent resident

MG (prison-Article 28(3) (a) of Citizens Directive) [2014] UKUT 392 (IAC) (12 August 2014)

Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of imprisonment can interrupt the continuity of the period of residence. This imprisonment can affect the decision regarding the grant of the enhanced protection provided even where the person concerned resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment.

However, the fact that the client resided in the host Member State for the 10 years prior to imprisonment may be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host Member State have been broken.


Unaccompanied minors can apply for asylum in the country they are present

MA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EUECJ C-648/11

The second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Member State responsible


Parents of a child of age who wants to complete their education can be granted derived right of residence

Alarape & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EUECJ C-529/11 (08 May 2013)

The long-term migrant parents of a child who has attained the age of majority and who has obtained access to education - on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community - may continue to have a derived right of residence if their child remains in need of the presence and care of their parents to complete their education.


Permanent residence application can’t be dismissed if migrant’s have children in education

Ahmed (Amos; Zambrano; reg 15A(3) (c) 2006 EEA Regs) Pakistan (Rev 1) [2013] UKUT 89 (IAC)

The Applicant, a Pakistan national, has been in the UK for 8 years, lawfully up until her application for permanent residence.  She has been self-employed for four years.  Her children are Union citizens in education; therefore  she should be entitled to a derived EU right of residence as long as her children remain in the UK and/or in education, according to Article 12 Regulation 1612/68.  


The fact, therefore, that she does not qualify for a permanent residence card under the Directive or under the 2006 Regulations is not a proper reason to dismiss her appeal.


The Dublin Regulation may be waived when asylum seekers suffer degrading treatments and are not granted proper examination of their request

ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [GC], Application No. 30696/09 21/01/2011

An Afghan asylum seeker who fled from Kabul in 2008, entered the European Union through Greece and travelled on to Belgium where he applied for asylum. Greece was held to be the responsible Member State for the examination of his asylum application, according to the Dublin Regulation rules (link). Therefore the Belgian authorities transferred him back to Greece in June 2009 where he faced detention in terrible conditions before living on the streets without any support. WHilst in Greece, he suffered the violation of Article 2 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and/or Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy).


The Court concluded that there is a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 on the ground that the deficiencies in the Greek authorities examination of the applicant’s asylum request and the risk he faces of being returned to his country of origin without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without having access to an effective remedy.