R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, SS for Education and Skills | |
---|---|
Court | European Court of Justice |
Citation(s) | (2005) C-209/03, [2005] ECR I-2119 |
Keywords | |
Free movement of citizens |
R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, SS for Education and Skills (2005) C-209/03 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.
Danny Bidar, was French, and lived with his grandmother in the UK from August 1998, with his mother, who had cancer and died. He attended the local secondary school, and began reading UCL economics in September 2001. He received assistance with tuition fees (following Gravier v City of Liège ), but his application for a student loan was refused on the ground that he did not have ‘settled’ status.
AG Geelhoed, referred to concerns of "benefit tourism". [1]
The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice held that Bidar could not be denied the student loan on the basis that he did not have settled status. Bidar was an EU citizen, lawfully resident under TFEU art 21, in conjunction with the Persons of Independent Means Directive 90/364 (now the Citizens Rights Directive article 7(1)(b)). He satisfied those conditions. He was entitled under TFEU art 18 to social assistance benefits, and these included maintenance costs through subsidised loans or grants. Student assistance fell within the treaty scope. The English rules were indirect discrimination. It was legitimate for a member state to grant assistance only to those with a degree of integration. The three year rule was compatible with EU law, but the requirement to have settled status was not, because it was impossible for a student from another member state to obtain it.
European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union. Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".
European competition law is the competition law in use within the European Union. It promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.
In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.
Citizenship of the European Union is afforded to all citizens of member states of the European Union (EU). It was formally created with the adoption of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the creation of the EU. EU citizenship is additional to, and does not replace, national citizenship. It affords EU citizens with rights, freedoms, and legal protections available under EU law.
The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market is a single market comprising the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) as well as – with certain exceptions – Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and Switzerland through bilateral treaties. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms".
The right of abode is an individual's freedom from immigration control in a particular country. A person who has the right of abode in a country does not need permission from the government to enter the country and can live and work there without restriction, and is immune from removal and deportation.
Chen v Home Secretary was a decision of the European Court of Justice which decided that a minor who is a national of a European Union member state has the right to reside in the European Union with his or her third-country national parents, provided the minor and parents have health insurance and will not become a burden on the public finances of the member state of residence.
The Freedom to Provide Services or sometimes referred to as free movement of services along with the Freedom of Establishment form the core of the European Union's functioning. With the free movement of workers, citizens, goods and capital, they constitute fundamental rights that give companies and citizens the right to provide services without restrictions in any member country of the EU regardless of nationality and jurisdiction.
Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2008) C-127/08 is an EU law case, significant in Ireland and Denmark, on the Citizens Rights Directive and family unification rules for migrant citizens. Citizenship of the European Union was established by Article 20 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 elaborates the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a member state, consolidating previous Directives dealing with the right to move and reside within the European Community (EC).
The Posted Workers Directive96/71/EC is an EU directive concerned with the free movement of workers within the European Union. It makes an exception to the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980, which ordinarily requires that workers are protected by the law of the member state in which they work.
European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition to for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.
The Directive of the European Parliament and the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters was proposed in April 2010, by a group of seven European Union Member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Estonia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. The EIO would replace the existing legal framework applicable to the gathering and transfer of evidence between the member states. It proposed a procedure that would allow an authority in one member state to request specific criminal investigative measures be carried out by an authority in another member state. The measure is based on the principle of mutual recognition established in article 82(1) of the TFEU. Article 82(1) stipulates that judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union shall be based upon the mutual recognition of judgements and judicial decisions.
Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE is a case decided by the European Court of Justice which deals with the concepts of 'worker' and 'social assistance' under European Union law.
The 2015-16 United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership was an unimplemented non-binding package of changes to the United Kingdom's terms of its European Union (EU) membership as a member state and changes to EU rules which was first proposed by Prime Minister David Cameron in January 2013, with negotiations beginning in the summer of 2015 following the outcome of the UK General Election. The package was agreed by the President of the European Council Donald Tusk, and approved by EU leaders of all 27 other countries at the European Council session in Brussels on 18–19 February 2016 between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. The changes were intended to take effect following a vote for "Remain" in the UK's in-out referendum in June 2016, at which point suitable legislative proposals would be presented by the European Commission. Due to the outcome of the referendum in which the electorate voted by 51.9% to 48.1% to leave the bloc, the changes were never implemented and subsequently the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union in January 2020.
Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (2014) C‑333/13 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.
Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (2001) C-184/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.
Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.
Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne is a 2018 case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that affirmed residency rights to same-sex couples in EU countries that do not recognise same-sex unions, if at least one partner is an EU citizen and if the marriage was legally performed in an EU member state.
The Immigration Regulations 2016, or EEA Regulations 2016 for short, constituted the law that implemented the right of free movement of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and their family members in the United Kingdom. The regulations were repealed by the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Act 2020 on 31 December 2020, at the end of the transition period.
H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others, [2012] IESC 58; [2013] 1 IR 142, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):
Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?