Hiya,

The Court of Appeal have been turning their brains around the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Citizenship Directive (EC Directive 2004/38) on the rights of residence of other family members.

The judgment is available on the Bailii website here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/13.rtf

Case is KG (Sri Lanka) and AK (Sri Lanka) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department <2008> EWCA Civ 13, 25/01/2008.

They touch on whether Article 3(2) is correctly transposed into UK law by Reg 8 of the I(EEA) Regs 2006 (suggesting possibly not and that a reference to the ECJ may be needed to work this out) but hold that the "membership of household" (also "living under his roof" etc) or "dependence" "in the country from which he has come" in Art 3(2) should be construed as follows:

1. Membership of household means that the family member was a member of the household of the EU migrant worker etc (ie that the EU migrant was the head of the household rather than them being members of same collective household etc).

2. The dependency or living under same roof situation must have existed in the country from which the EU worker has come- if this was outside the EU this might be ok (this is point on which they say a reference might be needed) however what is clear is that it is the country in which the EU worker was living immediately before exercising right of free movement that the factual situation must have existed. Although Sedley LJ has a very slightly different take--- see para 87.

Lots of other meaty stuff in there that I am still trying to understand.

All very troublesome for me as I have a Commissioner case next week where the worker came from one EU country but his other family member who we want to have a R to R was living in a different one.....