Tanjina Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer
[2024] EWCA Civ 248
Halil Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department
31 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 921
Court of Appeal
A Turkish man wanted to stay in the UK because he's married to a Romanian woman. But they got married *after* the deadline set by a Brexit agreement. The court said the agreement is very specific about who can stay, and he didn't meet the rules, even though the pandemic made it hard for them to marry sooner.
Key Facts
- •Halil Celik, a Turkish national, entered the UK in 2017 and his asylum claim was refused.
- •He began a relationship with a Romanian national, Ms Ibram, in late 2019 and lived with her from February 2020.
- •On 25 August 2020, he applied for leave to remain as Ms Ibram's unmarried partner; this application was refused on 2 March 2021.
- •On 17 March 2021 (after the transition period ended), he applied for leave to remain as Ms Ibram's spouse (they married on 9 April 2021); this application was also refused.
- •Celik appealed the second refusal through the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, both of which dismissed his appeal.
- •The appeal to the Court of Appeal focused on whether Celik should be treated as having a right to reside under the Withdrawal Agreement, despite not being married before the end of the transition period.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement
Withdrawal Agreement, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Scope of rights to reside for EU nationals and family members
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Directive 2004/38/EC, Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016
Proportionality
Withdrawal Agreement
Rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights
Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Convention on Human Rights
Non-discrimination
Withdrawal Agreement
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
Celik did not meet the definition of a family member under Article 10(1)(e)(i) of the Withdrawal Agreement because he was not married to an EU national before the end of the transition period. The Court rejected arguments based on proportionality, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and alternative interpretations of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Interveners' arguments regarding the first application rejected
No appeal was made against the refusal of the first application. The Court found that the second application, made after the transition period, could not fall under Article 10(3) of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Similar Cases
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Have Rexhaj
[2024] EWCA Civ 784
Shaun Emambux v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1459
Taulant Dani v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 293 (IAC)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pritam Kumar Nagdev & Anor
[2024] UKUT 101 (IAC)