Colleagues,

Does CIS/1121/2007 (particularly paras 8 to 10) consign Baumbast to that great shredder in the sky? I was rather looking forward to taking the train down to Southern France this spring, putting my 13 year old in school in Avignon or somesuch, and then putting my feet up for the duration. is there any hope?

Steve

for those who haven't seen it, there's a summary of CIS/1121/2007 in briefcase @

Right to reside on the basis of being the principal carer of a child in education

There may still be hope as CPAG are thinking about appealing it. I'll post as soon as I know anything. They're being cagey at the minute as my Mr Baumbast hadn't done very much work so it's a bit uncertain.

Mr Commr Rowland might be wrong as only article 10 1612/68 was amended and Mr Baumast took his holidays under article 12.

There's still hope of a tan...

Sorry to be completely ignorant.. but who or what is Baumbast..?

Baumbast and Another v. Secretary of State for the Home Department <2003> ICR 1347, (Case C-413/99)in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), (Mar 6 and July 5 2001; Sept 17 2002).

Full judgement at http://curia.europa.eu/ and search on "Baumbast".

Baumbast is a case that laid a precedent whereby a parent might glean a right of residence in an EU countr by virtue of their child's right, under article 12 of regulation 1612/68/EEC to complete a course of education, should the parent have been a "qualified person" in the host member state.

However the title of this post may indeed be the epitaph of your holiday hopes Steve.

CPAG seem to be advising that in the two cases they're considering taking forward, the worker status of both appellants doesn't seem to be on firm enough ground to guarantee that something won't go pear shaped.

I believe they're looking for a test case though, if anyone's got a Baumbast type arrangement where the claimant has done a decent amount of work then flag it up!

It's probably still worth arguing it though, and sticking in the fact that art 12 1612/68 EEC wasn't amended and is still in force; as this is the part that benefited Mr Baumbast then arguably the decision is still good law and Mr Comm'r Rowland is wrong.

I'll be copying this post elsewhere...

Hi Dan,

How depressing... I've bought the tickets and everything.

Steve