Key Facts
- •Wilfried Versnick (Belgian national) married Isla Jarvis-Wingate (UK national) in the UK.
- •Versnick claimed Universal Credit (UC) jointly with his wife, but his claim was refused due to failing the habitual residence test.
- •Jarvis-Wingate received various legacy benefits (Child Tax Credit, ESA, Housing Benefit, PIP, Child Benefit).
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) remade the decision in Versnick's favor, allowing a joint UC claim.
- •The Secretary of State appealed the UT decision, arguing the UT incorrectly considered social assistance resources when assessing Versnick's self-sufficiency under Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC.
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether Versnick could rely on his wife's social assistance benefits to establish self-sufficiency.
Legal Principles
EU law establishes a right to free movement and residence, subject to limitations and conditions.
Article 20 and 21 TFEU, Directive 2004/38/EC Recitals (1), (9), (10), (11), (21), Article 1, Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(b), Article 8(4), Article 14, Article 24, Article 27.
To establish self-sufficiency under Directive 2004/38/EC, an EU national must have sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host state's social assistance system.
Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC
The origin of the resources is not automatically relevant; a person can rely on resources from a third party.
Zhu and Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-200/02), Re Conditions of Residence and Deportation: Commission of the European Communities v Belgium (Case-408/03), Alopka v Ministre du Travail, Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (Case C-333/13), Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-93/18), CG v Department for Communities in Northern Ireland (Case C-709/20).
A host state cannot define a fixed amount as sufficient resources, but it must consider the individual's circumstances.
Article 8(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC, Brey Case
There must be a causal link between the EU national's exercise of free movement rights and the imposition of a burden on the host state's social assistance system.
Court of Appeal reasoning
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal.
The UT correctly found that Versnick's presence did not increase, but decreased, the burden on the UK's social assistance system. The Court found that there was no error in law in the UT's approach to applying the EU Directive principles to the unique facts of this case.