Domestic Violence In Addition To Gratis Drive Of Eu Citizens: A Shameful Cjeu Ruling

Steve Peers

European Union laws on the complimentary campaign of European Union citizens don’t give non-EU citizens rights inwards their ain name. Rather, non-EU citizens tin dismiss alone attain rights nether those laws if they accept a menage unit of measurement link alongside an European Union citizen. This creates an obvious occupation inwards cases of domestic violence committed past times an European Union citizen against a non-EU citizen menage unit of measurement member. If the non-EU menage unit of measurement fellow member breaks the menage unit of measurement link inwards gild to flee the violence, at that spot could live a gamble of expulsion. So the victims powerfulness remain alongside their abusers due to a fright of removal from the country, which powerfulness include separation from their children.

However, at that spot are provisions of European Union constabulary that mitigate this risk. It has long been the seat (since the CJEU judgment inwards Diatta) that non-EU citizens tin dismiss remain inwards the same province every bit their European Union citizen wife next a separation. Their seat alone changes after divorce.

Upon divorce, the European Union citizens’ Directive (which sets out most of the rules governing European Union citizens who moved to exactly about other Member State) provides specific protection. As a full general rule, they tin dismiss remain if the union has lasted 3 years, including ane twelvemonth inwards the host State. They tin dismiss too remain if they accept custody of the children, or access to them inwards the host State. Finally, they tin dismiss too remain if ‘this is warranted past times especially hard circumstances, such every bit having been a victim of domestic violence spell the marriage…was subsisting’. In whatever of these cases, they tin dismiss later larn permanent residence status.

The recent judgment inwards NA was the cause fourth dimension the Court of Justice has interpreted the specific dominion on domestic violence cases. It follows lastly year’s judgment inwards Singh, where the Court cause interpreted the full general dominion nearly divorce. Both cases raised the same underlying issue: what happens if the European Union citizen leaves the host State earlier the divorce is finalised? Does that divergence immediately terminate the non-EU citizen’s condition nether the citizens’ Directive, trumping the retentiveness of their residence that would otherwise apply during their separation in addition to (probably) their subsequent divorce from their spouse?  

According to the Court of Justice, it does. This reasoning was an unconvincing interpretation of the full general dominion inwards Singh, in addition to it is a especially unconvincing interpretation of the special dominion on domestic violence victims, taking insufficient occupation organisation human relationship of the social context of this rule. While the victim inwards NA was able to rely on other provisions of European Union law, non all victims volition live able to. The Court of Justice should thus rethink its seat if the representative arises – especially inwards lite of the EU’s planned signature of the Istanbul Convention on violence against women.

The judgment

The representative concerned the condition of a Pakistani adult woman who moved to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in addition to Northern Ireland of Britain in addition to Northern Republic of Ireland alongside her German linguistic communication husband. (The judgment volition no longer live relevant to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in addition to Northern Ireland of Britain in addition to Northern Republic of Ireland if the province leaves the European Union without an understanding on the continued complimentary campaign of people. However, it volition withal live relevant to other Member States). Her hubby worked inwards the UK, in addition to the distich had 2 daughters, both of whom are German linguistic communication citizens. She left the household due to domestic violence, in addition to her hubby left the province presently after that, earlier whatever divorce proceedings began. She later sought permanent residence condition inwards the UK.

Did she retain rights nether the citizens’ Directive? As noted above, the Court said she did not. It exactly followed Singh, ruling that rights for the non-EU menage unit of measurement fellow member ended the 2nd the European Union citizen left the country, unless divorce proceedings had begun beforehand. It gave 3 reasons. First, the wording of the relevant clause referred alone to divorce. Second, the context was the ‘exceptional’ representative where a non-EU citizen retained a correct to remain despite no longer existence a ‘family member’ of an European Union citizen living inwards the same Member State. Third, the Court referred to the ‘aims’ of the law. In its view, the European Union legislature had declined to brand provision for cases where the European Union citizen had departed the Member State, in addition to the master copy proposed that the European Union sign, provides for a correct of residence inwards domestic violence cases (see Article 59). There’s no reference to whatever distinction based on whether the perpetrator has left the province or not. Neither is at that spot whatever such reference inwards the explanatory memorandum to the Convention. And why the hell should at that spot be? Who cares where the perpetrator is, inwards this context? The sole operate of the Convention – similar the relevant clause inwards the citizens’ Directive – is evidently to assist the victim.

Secondly, let’s examine the constabulary from the perspective of the actual victim inwards this case. She could accept preserved her seat past times bringing divorce proceedings earlier her hubby left the country. But she had exactly fled her home, 5 months important alongside an eleven-month onetime child. She may good accept faced problems relating to work, benefits or accommodation. And on transcend of all this, the Court of Justice gives the nod to the Home Office to interrogation her immigration status.

With all due respect, this is ane of the most shameful judgments inwards the Court’s long history. It should live revisited at the earliest opportunity, inwards item if the European Union has concluded the Istanbul Convention inwards the meantime.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13

JHA4: chapter I:6

Photo image: Telegraph.co.uk

Share this post