Home / Law » Immigration & Asylum Law » Law » Human Rights » Clayton: Textbook on Immigration & Asylum Law 3e » Resources » End-of-chapter question guidance » Chapter 6
Clayton: Textbook on Immigration & Asylum Law 3e
Chapter 6
1. Was the ECJ right to refuse entitlement to benefit to Mr Collins? Do you have any sympathy with the Commission's view that Article 18 requires that the mobility of citizens of the Union should not be impeded by being unable to claim benefits while they look for work? After all, Mr Collins would only have qualified for income-based job-seeker's allowance if he was genuinely seeking work.
Read Collins. Read around to complete your understanding of the idea of a 'worker' in EC law. The EC law textbooks listed in the end of chapter reading will be a useful course for this. Read Article 7 of Reg. 1612/68. Write a short piece to explain your understanding of the case, and responding to the view of the Commission.
2. Do you agree with the Court in Akrich that motivation is irrelevant when a couple relies on the rights arising from Surinder Singh?
Read Akrich and Surinder Singh. Write a short essay explaining the differences between the two cases. Having done this, give your own view on whether motivation is irrelevant.
3. The mother in Chen had no right of residence in the UK prior to the birth of her child. Is the case consistent with Akrich?
The point here is that the ECJ in Akrich said that the family member (Mr Akrich) must be residing lawfully in another Member State in order to take advantage of the right to accompany the EU citizen. The mother in Chen was not lawfully resident elsewhere with her EU child, because the child was born in the country in which her right to residence was asserted (the UK), even though it was so asserted on the basis of a different EU nationality (Irish). This happened without the family physically moving, because Irish law on this point extended to the whole of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland which is part of the UK.
This apparent requirement in Akrich has now been substantially removed by Jia. The factual situations were very different in these three cases. Read all three. How they interrelate and affect each other is not yet fully explored in the courts. Work out as far as you can what the impact of each is on family members of EU nationals. For instance, does Chen have any impact on the rights of an adult to be accompanied by their parent? Is there any such right? Why do Akrich and Jia appear to be so different?