A child’s right to education and a parent's derivative right to reside is dependent on a common period of residence when the parent was a worker

Friday 22 June 2018

In Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v HY (HB): [2018] UKUT 103 (AAC), Judge Ward, 23 March 2018, the claimant, HY, a Dutch national, had moved to the UK in December 2012. 

Share This Page

Email This Page

In Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v HY (HB): [2018] UKUT 103 (AAC), Judge Ward, 23 March 2018, the claimant, HY, a Dutch national, had moved to the UK in December 2012.  She was employed between May 2013 and September 2013 for 16 hours a week.  Her children came to the UK in July 2014.

In October 2014 when her children started school and she was in receipt of income-based JSA, a claim for HB was made. This was turned down.  Following the amendments in SI 2014/5391, it was not possible for HY to rely on receiving JSA on the basis that she was a jobseeker. But a FTT allowed HY’s appeal saying that she had a derivative right to reside as a primary carer who had been in employment in the UK.

The local authority appealed, submitting that it was necessary for there to have been a common period when the children were installed in the UK and the parent was a worker.

The Upper Tribunal allowed the local authority’s appeal holding that in order for a child to access the rights conferred by Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011, there was a requirement that the child must have been installed in the host Member State at a time when at least one of the child’s parents resided there as a worker.

Judge Ward observed that this was how the CJEU had ‘repeatedly chosen to define the nexus on which access to the right conferred by Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 and subsequently Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011 depends’ (at [40]).

The Upper Tribunal decision is available here Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v HY (HB): [2018] UKUT 103 (AAC)

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards