Metock: Free movement and " normal family life" in the Union

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 587-622

  Costello, Cathryn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649291872     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (206)

1. Art. 10 of Regulation 1612/68, O.J. 1968, L 257/2.
2. Case C-109/01, Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Hacene Akrich, [2003] ECR I-9607. See annotation by Spaventa, (2005) CML Rev., 225.
3. Case C-1/05, Jia v. Migrationsverket, [2007] ECR I-1. See further case note by Olivier and Reestman, (2007) EuConst, 463.
4. Case C-291/05, Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v. Eind, [2007] ECR I-10719. See further Bierbach, " 'European Citizens' Third-Country Family Members and Community Law" (Case note on Case C-291/05, Eind ), (2008) EuConst, 344.
5. Case C-127/08, Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, judgment of 25 July 2008, nyr.
6. Case C-155/07, Sahin v. Bundesminister für Inneres, Reasoned Order of the 7th Chamber, 19 Dec. 2008.
7. Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, O.J. 2004, L 158/77 and corrigenda O.J. 2004, L 229/35, O.J. 2005, L 30/27, O.J. 2005, L 197/34 and O.J. 2007, L 204/28.
8. See Regulation 1612/68, cited supra note 1.
9. See further, Brouwer, "Effective remedies for Third Country Nationals in EU Law: Justice accessible to all?", (2005) European Journal of Migration and Law ("EJML"), 219 and "Effective remedies in immigration and asylum law procedures: The Relevance of General Principles of EU Law" in Baldaccini, Guild, Toner (Eds.), Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU immigration and asylum law after 1999 (Hart publishing, 2007), p. 57 and the discussion around notes 127-133 infra.
10. See e.g. Case C-16/05, R (on the application of Veli Tum and Mehmet Dari) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2007] ECR I-07415, on the EEC Association Agreement with Turkey and Case C-63/99, Gloszczuk, [2001] ECR I-6369 and Case C-235/99, Kondova, [2001] ECR I-6557 on the Europe Agreements.
11. Admittedly, many systems of automatic citizenship by declaration were sexist, in only allowing male citizens to transmit citizenship automatically to a spouse in this way. For details of the restrictive turn since the mid-1980s, see Waldrauch, "Acquisition of Nationality" in Bauböck, Ersboll, Groenendijk, Waldrauch (Eds.), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality (Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2006) (2 volumes), pp. 159-167.
12. Joppke, "Comparative citizenship: A restrictive turn in Europe?", 1 Journal of Law and Ethics of Human Rights (2008), 7
13. Ibid., 11.
14. Waldrauch, op. cit. supra note 11, p. 166. Such restrictions are in place in France, Austria, Denmark, Greece and Ireland.
15. Waldruach identifies various integration conditions, namely knowledge of country (Denmark, Greece); language (Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg) and both (Netherlands, UK), p. 166. For recent criticisms of one Member State's stringent requirements, see Human Rights Watch, The Netherlands: Discrimination in the Name of Integration (2008).
16. See e.g. Application No. 46410/99, Üner v. Netherlands, [2007] 45 EHRR 14; Application No. 1638/03, Maslov v. Austria, judgment of 23 June 2008, nyr. Steinorth, "Üner v. The Netherlands: Expulsion of Long-term Immigrants and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life", (2008) Human Rights Law Review, 185.
17. Application No. 50435/99, Rodrigues da Silva/Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, 31 Jan. 2006.
18. Ibid., para 44.
19. See e.g., Application No. 31465/96, Sen v. Netherlands, [2003] 36 EHRR 7; Application No. 41226/98, IM v. Netherlands, judgment of 25 March 2003; Application No. 53675/00, Andrade v. Netherlands, judgment of 6 July 2004; Application No. 60665/00, Tuquabo-Tekle, judgment of 1 Dec. 2005. See case note, Boeles and Bruins, (2006) EJML, 372.
20. See further Rogers, "Immigration and the European Convention on Human Rights: Are new principles emerging?", (2003) European Human Rights Law Review, 53.
21. Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81 Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. UK, [1985] EHRR 471, para 68. Subsequent cases illustrated the difficulty for couples to establish that it would not be possible to establish family life elsewhere: Application No. 24831/94, Kamara v. United Kingdom, judgment of 31 Aug. 1994. As a result, it may be easier for a divorced TCN parent to establish an Art. 8 ECHR violation, as it would not be reasonable in these circumstances to have the family relocate from the European country to the ex-spouse's country of origin: Application No. 10730/84, Berrehab v. The Netherlands, [1988] 11 EHRR 322.
22. Admittedly, the ECHR will interpret Art. 8 ECHR in light of EC law in appropriate cases. For example, the EC right of a Spanish national to reside in France was taken into account in Application No. 51431/99, Mendizabal v. France, judgment of 17 Jan. 2006, para 69.
23. Joined Cases 36 & 36/82, Morson and Jhanjan v. the Netherlands, [1982] ECR 3723.
24. Besson and Utzinger, "Future challenges of European citizenship: Facing a wideopen Pandora's Box", (2007) ELJ, 573
25. Epiney, "The scope of Article 12 EC: Some remarks on the influence of European citizenship", (2007) ELJ, 611
26. Kostakopoulou, "European Union citizenship: Writing the future", (2007) ELJ, 623
27. Jacobs, "Citizenship of the European Union - A legal analysis", (2007) ELJ, 591.
28. The preservation of these "purely internal situations" has survived the introduction of citizenship of the Union. Joined Cases C-64/96 & C-65/96, Uecker and Jacquet, [1997] ECR I-3171.
29. See Section 5 below.
30. Case C-370/90, Surinder Singh, [1992] ECR I-4265, para 24, and the case law cited there.
31. Barrett, "Family matters: European Community law and Third-Country Family Members", (2003) CML Rev., 369, at 379-380.
32. Akrich, cited supra note 2.
33. Jia, cited supra 3.
34. Eind, cited supra note 4.
35. Akrich, cited supra note 2.
36. Ibid., para 50.
37. Ibid., paras. 51-53.
38. Case C-459/99, MRAX, [2002] ECR I-6591, para 80.
39. Case C-157/03, Commission v. Spain, [2005] ECR I-2911.
40. Case C-60/00, Carpenter, [2002] ECR I-6279, para 58
41. For an exploration of these tensions, see Spaventa, op. cit. supra note 2, 234-237.
42. Akrich, para 58.
43. Jia, cited supra note 3.
44. Art. 43 EC; Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services O.J. 1973, L 172/14.
45. Para 33.
46. Eind, cited supra note 4.
47. Ibid., paras. 41-45.
48. Ibid., para 38.
49. Opinion of 27 April 2006, para 35
50. Regulation 1612/68 and Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/ EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
51. Citizenship Directive (supra note 7), Art. 2(2)(b).
52. Ibid., Art. 5(2).
53. Ibid., Art. 13.
54. Ibid., Art. 35.
55. Ibid., Art. 27.
56. Ibid., Art. 3(1).
57. Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States COM(2008)840 p. 3, 4. However, the PLR requirement in the UK Regulations of 2000 was removed in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
58. Ibid. The seven are Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and the Netherlands.
59. European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, which were made on 18 Dec. 2006 and entered into force on 1 Jan. 2007. S.I. No. 656 of 2006.
60. For instance, in SK and TT v. Minister for Justice, [2007] IEHC 216 Hanna J in the Irish High Court, in a ruling we can now with certainty say was incorrect, upheld the validity of the PLR requirement in the Irish implementing regulations.
61. Metock, cited supra note 5.
62. Case C-127/08, Order of the President of the Court, 17 April 2008.
63. Pursuant to Art. 23a of the Statute of the Court and Art. 104a of the Rules of Procedure. For discussion, see "Editorial: Speeding Up the Preliminary Reference Procedure - fast but not too fast", (2008) EL Rev., 617 and on its application specifically in Metock, Chalmers, "The secret delivery of justice", (2008) EL Rev., 773.
64. Order of the President of the Court, supra note 59, paras. 12-13.
65. Ibid., paras. 16-17.
66. The Czech, Danish, German, Greek, Cypriot, Maltese, Netherlands, Austrian, Finnish, and UK governments intervened.
67. See curia.europa.eu/en/actu/activites/act08/0820en.htm.
68. For critique of failure to publish such Opinions consistently, see the petition prepared by Dr. Spaventa, 11 Sept. 2008, available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/deli/ECJ-PPUprocedure2. doc.
69. As to whether submissions themselves should be made public, a pending case before the ECJ will examine this matter: Cases C-514/07P, C-528/07P and C-532/07P, API v. Commission, O.J. 2008, C 22/32, 36, 37.
70. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 40.
71. Ibid., para 41.
72. Ibid., para 44.
73. Ibid., para 45.
74. Ibid., para 62: "[I]f Union citizens were not allowed to lead a normal family life in the host Member State, the exercise of the freedoms they are guaranteed by the Treaty would be seriously obstructed."
75. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 98.
76. Ibid., para 99.
77. Ibid., paras. 49-50.
78. Ibid., paras. 51-54.
79. Ibid., para 54.
80. "That interpretation is supported by the Court's case law on the instruments of secondary law concerning freedom of movement for persons adopted before Directive 2004/38." Metock, cited supra note 5, para 55.
81. Ibid., para 56, citing Carpenter, supra note 37, para 38; MRAX, supra note 35, para 53; Commission v. Spain, supra note 36, para 26; Case C-503/03, Commission v. Spain, [2006] ECR I-1097, para 41; Case C-441/02, Commission v. Germany, [2006] ECR I-3449, para 109; and Eind, supra note 4, para 44; ibid. para 57, citing Case C-503/03, Commission v. Spain, para 41.
82. Case 302/87, Parliament v. Council (Comitology), [1988] ECR 5615; cf. Case 70/88, Parliament v. Council (Chernobyl), [1990] ECR 2041; Case 45/86, Commission v. Council (General Tariff Preferences), [1987] ECR 1493; cf. Case 8/73, Haputzollamt Bremerhaven v. Massey-Ferguson, [1973] ECR 897; Cases 60 & 61/84, Cinetheque SA v. Federation Nationale des Cinemas Francais, [1985] ECR 2605; cf. Case C-260/89, Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi (ERT), [1991] ECR I-2925.
83. Joined Cases C-267/91 & C-268/91, Keck & Mithouard, [1993] ECR I-6097.
84. Case C-10/89, CNL-SUCL NV v. Hag (HAG II), [1990] ECR I-3711.
85. Case 192/72, Van Zuylen v. HAG (HAG I), [1974] ECR 731.
86. See Greaves, "A Commentary on Selected Opinions of Advocate General Jacobs", (2006) Fordham International Law Journal, 690, at 700-703
87. Keck, supra note 80, para 16.
88. Metock, supra note 5, para 58, citing MRAX, supra note 35, para 59, Commission v. Spain, supra note 36, para 28.
89. Recital 3, Citizenship Directive.
90. Metock, supra note 5, para 59.
91. Ibid., para 81.
92. Ibid., para 88.
93. Ibid., para 59.
94. Case C-209/03, Dany Bidar, [2005] ECR I-2119. See further, Barnard, case note on Bidar, (2005) CML Rev., 1465.
95. Case C-413/99, Baumbast and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002] ECR I-7091; Case C-184/99, Grzelczyk, [2001] ECR I-6193; Case C-138/02, Collins, [2004] ECR I-2703.
96. Case C-158/07, Jacqueline Förster v. IB-Groep, judgment of 18 Nov. 2008, nyr.
97. Ibid., para 52.
98. Ibid., paras. 48-50.
99. Metock, supra note 5, paras. 60-70.
100. Ibid., para 62.
101. Ibid., referring back to para 56.
102. Arts. 18(2), 40, 44 and 52 EC.
103. Metock, supra note 5, para 63.
104. The competence "include[ed] where the family members were not already lawfully resident in another Member State." Para 65.
105. Metock, supra note 5, para 62.
106. Ibid., para 64.
107. See the cases cited at note 113 infra.
108. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 68.
109. Case C-491/01, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [2002] ECR I-11453.
110. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 89.
111. Case C-415/93, Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921.
112. Case C-76/90, Saeger v. Dennemeyer, [1991] ECR I-4221.
113. Opinion of A.G. Jacobs in Case C-224/02, Pusa, [2004] ECR I-5763, para 22.
114. See Case C-224/98, D'Hoop, [2002] ECR I-6191; Pusa, cited supra note 112; Case C-76/05, Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz, [2007] ECR I-06849; Case C-318/05, Commission v. Germany, [2007] ECR I-06957; Joined Cases C-11/06 & C-12/06, Morgan & Bucher, [2007] ECR I-9161. On the last three, see nic Shuibhne, Case note, (2008) CML Rev., 771; Case C-499/06, Halina Nerkowska, judgment of 22 May 2008, nyr; Case C-33/07, Gheorghe Jipa, judgment of 10 July 2008, nyr; Case C-353/06, Grunkin-Paul, judgment of 14 Oct. 2008, nyr.
115. See further "Editorial Comments: Freedoms Unlimited? Reflections on Mary Carpenter v. Secretary of State", (2003) CML Rev., 537.
116. Dougan, "The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship", (2006) EL Rev., 613, at 633-634.
117. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 70.
118. Art. 5(2) Citizenship Directive.
119. Para 96.
120. Case 48/75, Royer, [1976] ECR 497.
121. Art. 27 includes the following requirement: "The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.".
122. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 97, citing MRAX, cited supra note 35, para 77 and the case law cited therein.
123. Ibid., para 71.
124. Ibid., para 72.
125. Ibid., para 73.
126. Ibid., para 74, referring to Ch. VI of the Directive.
127. Ibid., para 75.
128. See Brouwer, op. cit. supra note 9.
129. MRAX, cited supra note 35.
130. Case C-327/02, Panayotova v. Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, [2004] ECR I-11055, para 27.
131. Case 467/02, Cetinkaya v. Land Baden-Wurttemberg, [2004] ECR I-10895.
132. Case C-136/03, Dörr v. Sicherheitsdirektion fur das Bundesland Karnten, [2005] ECR I-4759.
133. Panayotova, cited supra note 129, para 26: "It should also be pointed out that the procedural rules governing issue of such a temporary residence permit must themselves be such as to ensure that exercise of the right of establishment conferred by the Association Agreements is not made impossible or excessively difficult.".
134. Ibid., judgment, para 27, citing by analogy, Case C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms, [2001] ECR I-5473, para 90.
135. Note from the UK delegation to the Permanent Representatives Committee, Free movement of persons: abuses and substantive problems - Draft Council Conclusions, Brussels, 18 Nov. 2008, 15903/08, 1, available at www.statewatch.org/news/2008/nov/eu-restrictionsfree- movement-conclusions-nov-08.pdf. The Draft Conclusions also contain statements in tension with well-established principles from the free movement case law. See further Peers, Statewatch Analysis, The UK Proposals and EU free movement law: an attack on the rule of law and EU fundamental freedoms, available at http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-72- eu-attack-on-fundamental-rights-08.pdf.
136. On TCN family members, it specifically states that while they "share the right to move freely within the borders of the European Union", "Member States reiterate their commitment to protecting this right from being misused as a route for illegal immigration into the EU and will take forward cooperation to this end." Draft Council Conclusions, cited supra note 134, 1-2.
137. For example, the UK draft included : "Host Member States should also be able to consider that the cumulative damage caused by continuous low-level offending can amount to a sufficiently serious threat to public policy.".
138. See further, Samers, "An emerging geopolitics of 'Illegal' immigration in the European Union", (2004) EJML, 23, at 25.
139. Report from the Commission, supra note 54, at 3.
140. See generally de la Feria, "Prohibition of abuse of (Community) law: The creation of a new general principle of EC law through tax", (2008) CML Rev., 395. See further Costello, " Citizenship of the Union: Above Abuse?" in De la Feria and Vogenauer (Eds) Prohibition of Abuse of Law: A New General Principle of EU Law (2009 forthcoming) on file with the author.
141. "Abuse of rights Member States may adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred by this Directive in the case of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Any such measure shall be proportionate and subject to the procedural safeguards provided for in Articles 30 and 31".
142. "The presence of a dual regime, with one law for imports and another for domestic products, provides incentives for operators to cheat by passing off domestic products as imports. To counter this, an "abuse of rights" doctrine exists, preventing Art. 28 EC from being applied to goods produced in a Member State and then re-imported into it purely for the purposes of setting up a legal challenge to a national law." Chalmers et al, European Union Law: Text and Materials (Cambridge University press, 2006) p. 674, citing Case 229/83, Leclerc, [1985] ECR 1.
143. Surinder Singh, cited supra note 27, para 24. Akrich, supra note 2, paras. 55-57.
144. For example, in Wael Kweder v. Minister for Justice, [1996] 1 IR 381.
145. See comments by Bierbach, op. cit. supra note 4, in particular 358.
146. Jozwiak, "Denmark feels immigration law is under threat", (2008) EU Observer
147. Case 59/85, Reed, [1986] ECR 1283.
148. Para 96.
149. Gloszczuk, cited supra note 10.
150. R (on the application of Veli Tum and Mehmet Dari) v. SSHD, cited supra note 10.
151. Akrich, cited supra note 2, Opinion, para 44, citing Council Resolution 97/C382/01 of 4 Dec. 1997. The UK House of Lords has also cited the resolution with approval in R (on the application of Baiai and others) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2008] UKHL 53, per Lord Bingham para 6.
152. De Hart, "The Marriage of Convenience in European Immigration Law", (2006) EJML, 251, at 260. Recital 28 of the 2004 Citizenship Directive recalls the text of the Resolution when it refers to marriages of convenience entered into "for the sole purpose" of enjoying a right to free movement or residence.
153. Para 56, citing Carpenter, supra note 37; MRAX, supra note 35; Commission v. Spain, supra note 36; Case C-503/03, Commission v. Spain, supra note 78; Commission v. Germany, supra note 78; Eind, supra note 4.
154. Para 89.
155. "Moreover, it should be recalled that all the Member States are parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, which enshrines in Article 8 the right to respect for private and family life." Para 79.
156. So called ERT fundamental rights review, after Case C-260/89, ERT, [1991] ECR I-2925.
157. Metock, cited supra note 5, paras. 74, 75.
158. Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council and Commission, [2006] ECR I-5769.
159. Council Directive 2003/86 of 22 Sept. 2003 on the right to family reunification O.J. 2003, L 251/12.
160. Supra note 158. See further Lawson, Case note on Case C-540/03, Parliament v. Council and Commission, 27 June 2006, (2007) EuConst, 324.
161. Carpenter, cited supra note 37; Baumbast, cited supra note 93.
162. Akrich, cited supra note 2, paras. 76, 90, 103 and 104-108.
163. Ibid., para 41.
164. Opinion, paras. 69-70.
165. Opinion, paras. 80-97.
166. Judgment, para 44, cf. Opinion paras. 102-106. See further, for praise of the Opinion over the judgment, Reich, "Citizenship and family on trial: A fairly optimistic overview of recent court practice with regard to free movement of persons", (2003) CML Rev., 615.
167. Ibid, para 43.
168. Ibid, para 44.
169. Para 62, referring back to para 56.
170. Order, cited supra note 59.
171. For a comparison of ECHR and EC approaches to "family life" see Stalford, "Concepts of family under EU law - Lessons from the ECHR", (2002) International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 410.
172. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 73. Art. 2(2) defines as "family members" (a) the spouse; (b) the partner in a registered partnership "on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State"; (c) direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner; (d) dependant direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner. On the meaning of "dependency" see Jia, cited supra note 3, paras. 34-43.
173. Art. 3(2). "The host Member State shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to these people."
174. Metock, op. cit. supra note 5, para 64.
175. Buxton LJ stated in KG and AK (Sri Lanka) KG and AK (Sri Lanka), [2008] EWCA Civ 13; applied in SM (Metock; extended family members) Sri Lanka, [2008] UKAIT 00075.
176. SM, para 38.
177. See note 120.
178. Carpenter, cited supra note 37.
179. Baumbast, cited supra note 93.
180. In Case C-267/06, Maruko v. Versorgungsanstalt der Deutschen Bühnen, [2008] 2 CMLR 32, the ECJ took a tentative position on the issue of same-sex partnerships and sexual orientation discrimination, moving beyond its previous position in Case T-246/97, D & Sweden v. Council, [1999] ECR II-1, holding that where national law created two separate but equal statuses of heterosexual marriage and same-sex partnership, Council Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, O.J. 2000, L 303/16 required that couples joined under the two statuses should be treated equally, paras. 72 and 73.
181. "The Court has on several occasions held that citizenship of the Union is not intended to extend the material scope of the Treaty to internal situations which have no link to Community law." Case C-212/06, Government of the French Community and Walloon Government, judgment of 1 April 2008, nyr, para 39, citing Joined Cases C-64/96 & C-65/96, Uecker and Jacquet, [1997] ECR I-3171, para 23; Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello, [2003] ECR I-11613, para 26 and Case C-403/03, Schempp, [2005] ECR I-6421, para 20.
182. Para 73.
183. Para 77, citing Government of the French Community and Walloon Government, cited supra note 181, para 33. 184. Para 78.
184. Grzelczyk, cited supra note 93, para 31.
185. Recital 3, emphasis added.
186. Para 76.
187. Government of the French Community and Walloon Government, cited supra note 181, para 40, citing Case C-250/03, Mauri, [2005] ECR I-1267, para 21 and Case C-451/03, Servizi Ausilari Dottori Commercialisti, [2006] ECR I-2941.
188. Surinder Singh, cited supra note 27, para 19.
189. HB (EEA right to reside - Metock) Algeria, [2008] UKAIT 00069.
190. Ibid., 12.
191. Ibid., 14.
192. "A national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person as envisaged by the Treaty in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or self-employed person, the conditions of his entry and residence were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under the Treaty or secondary law in the territory of another Member State. He would in particular be deterred from so doing if his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of his Member State of origin under conditions at least equivalent to those granted them by Community law in the territory of another Member State." Paras. 19-20.
193. Maduro, "The scope of European Remedies: The case of purely internal situations and reverse discrimination" in Fitzpatrick, Novitz and Skidmore (Eds.), The Future of Remedies in Europe (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2000), p. 117, at 125.
194. Eind, cited supra note 4, para 33?.
195. Collins, cited supra note 93, para 28.
196. Ibid., para 29.
197. A.G. Maduro, Opinion in Panayotova, cited supra note 129, para 47, citing the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Carolene Products, 304 US 144 (1938).
198. Nic Shuibhne, "Free movement of persons and the wholly internal rule: Time to move on?", (2002) CML Rev., 731. Spaventa, "Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects", (2008) CML Rev., 13. For a detailed examination in the context of family reunification, see Walter, Reverse Discrimination and Family Reunification (2008).
199. Case C-72/03, Carbonati, [1995] ECR 1-8027, Opinion of A.G. Maduro; Opinion of A.G. Sharpston in Government of the French Community and Walloon Government, cited supra note 181, 27 June 2008.
200. D'Hoop, cited supra note 113; Pusa, cited supra note 112; Schwarz and Gootjes- Schwarz, cited supra note 113; Commission v. Germany, cited supssra note 113; Morgan & Bucher, cited supra note 113. See Shuibhne, op. cit. supra note 113; Halina Neerkowska, cited supra 113; Case C-151/07, Theologos-Grigoris Khatzithanasis v. Ipourgos Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, judgment of 4 Dec. 2008, nyr.
201. Metock, cited supra note 5, para 68.
202. Council of the European Union, Press Release 16325/08, Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions, Brussels 27 and 28 Nov. 2008, 28.