Rottmann Rules Uk? Tin British Citizenship Live On Taken Away Without Reckon To Eu Law?

 

Simon Cox*

Today the Britain Supreme Court began grappling amongst the pregnant in addition to outcome of the Rottmann judgment of the CJEU, which concerns the constraints placed past times European Union police line on the loss of national citizenship. Counsel for the British Home Secretary argued that an interpretation of that judgment every bit applying beyond cross-border cases would convey the CJEU beyond its competence. The Court questioned whether it could create upwards one's take away heed the application of Rottmann without outset making a reference to the CJEU: an view which the Government did non seriously oppose.

The illustration earlier the Court was brought past times Vietnamese-born Mr Pham, known every bit B2 until he dropped his asking for anonymity today. Acting nether the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA), the Home Secretary had deprived him of his British citizenship on national safety grounds. Pham argued he had ceased to last a Vietnamese citizen. The Special Immigration Appeal Commission agreed in addition to allowed the appeal nether BNA provision preventing statelessness. The Court of Appeal disagreed, belongings that Vietnam had non complied amongst it national law, in addition to thus Pham remained its citizen for purposes of the 1954 United Nations Statelessness Convention. The interpretation of that Convention is a key number inwards the appeal.

EU police line is also at stake. Aside from statelessness, Pham complained of his loss of European Union citizenship nether Article twenty TFEU. Pham relied on C-135/08 Rottmann to debate that this final result meant the British deprivation determination could only last taken amongst due regard to European Union law, inwards particular, proportionality.

That declaration had been rejected past times the Court of Appeal inwards a unlike case, R (G1) v Home Secretary [2013] QB 1008. Lord Justice Laws interpreted Rottmann to apply only to cross-border cases. Even to a greater extent than fundamentally, that courtroom queried whether Britain police line would recognise the CJEU every bit having say-so to modify the performance of the BNA.

G1 was refused permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal past times the Supreme Court. Later, the Supreme Court gave Pham permission, including on the European Union police line point.

At today’s hearing, several judges queried amongst Pham’s barrister, Hugh Southey QC, whether the courtroom needed to decide whether European Union police line applies. Would European Union police line proportionality give greater rights than British police line proportionality?, Lord Reed wondered. British citizenship is akin to a key right, thus proportionality is required suggested Lord Neuberger. Lord Carnwath asked whether the BNA anyway required a determination to last proportional. Lord Sumption suggested that since a determination to deprive a individual of British citizenship definitely does deprive them of European Union citizenship, British world police line may require the determination on the quondam to observe the legal approach to the latter.

Tim Eicke QC, counsel for the Home Secretary, accepted that the deprivation determination could only last upheld if it met the proportionality requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. He argued that Rottmann proportionality would last no greater than those requirements. He did even thus convey that European Union police line may require greater disclosure of otherwise undercover show than the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would require. Pressed on ‘substantive’ proportionality, he conceded Britain world police line would be less protective than European Union law.

Lord Reed in addition to Lady Hale queried whether Article 8 ECHR household unit of measurement life rights would last every bit extensive every bit European Union police line rights of gratuitous movement. Mr Eicke argued that the Strasbourg judgment inwards Karassev v Finland, 12 Jan 1999, extends the ECHR’s achieve to consideration of whether the loss of nationality breaches the Article 8 correct to individual life.

The courtroom referred to Lord Justice Laws declaration inwards G2 that British citizenship does non autumn inside the competence of European Union police line at all. Mr Southey replied that the query is i of interpretation of the European Union Treaties.

Lord Mance quizzed Tim Eicke QC, counsel for the Home Secretary, nigh the outcome of the adoption of subsequent European Union treaties re-enacting old treaties.

The Open Society Justice Initiative had been given permission to intervene inwards the Pham case, in addition to made a unlike European Union police line holler for inwards their written case. Relying on European Union instruments conferring advantages on stateless persons, similar Regulation 883/2004 (which regulates the coordination of social safety for persons moving betwixt Member States), they argued that statelessness is an autonomous concept of European Union law. Pham’s declaration nigh the pregnant of statelessness could non last rejected unless the Britain Court had outset taken into trouble organisation human relationship the European Union police line position. Since the CJEU had non yet interpreted the notion of statelessness, the Supreme Court would receive got to brand a reference, they argued, unless they agreed amongst Pham nether British police line read alone.

The Britain Government argued that, fifty-fifty if the illustration cruel inside the compass of European Union law, the notion of statelessness was non an autonomous European Union police line concept, because it arises hither only nether the BNA, a British law.

While the hearing continues tomorrow, the Government’s submissions on European Union police line were largely made today.

Updated: hearing on Midweek nineteen Nov

Pham – Day 2 – Reference to the CJEU on the cards

The Pham hearing concluded today inwards Court 1 of the Supreme Court amongst a morn of oral argument, outset from Home Office barrister Robin Tam QC, thus a respond past times Hugh Southey QC for Pham.

The seven-judge panel’s comments showed them weighing upwards ii alternatives. To inquire the CJEU what constraints, if any, European Union police line places on the physical care for in addition to core of depriving Pham of his British citizenship? Or to dismiss the appeal without ruling on European Union law, pregnant the illustration would provide to the fact-finding torso – the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).  The minute selection would encounter SIAC making findings on the alternative premises that European Union police line does, in addition to does not, apply. If SIAC industrial plant life that the departure inwards police line would drive a departure inwards final result inwards Pham’s case, a reference could thus last made to the CJEU, past times SIAC or on a farther appeal.

The outset selection would last slow, pointed out the court. No-one view the minute selection would last straightforward. Much of the tidings concerned Mr Pham’s correct to know the British safety service illustration that he is a threat to national security. Under the SIAC procedure, this is a crucial tool for appellants. Security service reluctance to reveal their arguments in addition to show hateful they may pick out to abandon claims of terrorism rather than tell the appellant what they receive got been proverb nigh him inwards secret. So a greater correct to disclosure tin mail away hateful the illustration is abandoned altogether.

The extent of legal duties to reveal has been closely fought inwards challenges to Britain Government decisions. Britain laws denying whatever correct to disclosure were outset weakened past times the Court of Human Rights inwards A & Others v UK, belongings that detention without trial could non last used if the gist or essence of the illustration were non disclosed to the detainee. In AF No 3, the UK’s highest courtroom followed this reasoning inwards ‘control order’ cases. The CJEU addressed this inwards C-300/11 ZZ, ruling that an European Union citizen facing exclusion from merely about other European Union state has a correct to know the gist. However, inwards I.R. v UK Strasbourg rejected arguments that ECHR Article 8 requires the same disclosure.

Could Pham receive got to a greater extent than nether the ZZ approach to European Union police line than nether Britain law, asked Lord Mance. Mr Tam conceded that he could: AF No iii does non apply to citizen deprivation appeals. But fifty-fifty assuming European Union police line does apply to a citizen deprivation appeal, the Britain Government did non convey that European Union police line would require a ZZ approach. (Rottmann speaks only of states ‘having regard to European Union law’.)

All this showed SIAC would probable receive got a difficult chore to create without clarification of the basic query - does European Union police line apply – and, indeed, the farther query – what does European Union police line require. Unsurprisingly, Mr Southey vigorously opposed the minute option. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 number of cases were left undecided – possibly undecidable – past times the electrical current uncertainty, he suggested.

On Rottmann, Pham’s legal squad argued that the linguistic communication of the judgment showed that the competence invoked was citizenship (article twenty TFEU), non gratuitous displace (article 21), in addition to pointed to the Ruiz Zambrano ruling. Mr Southey thus addressed the Government’s autumn dorsum declaration that the CJEU would overreach European Union competence nether Art v TEU past times requiring European Union police line to last applied to deprivation of citizenship (except inwards gratuitous displace cases). He argued that the Britain Parliament had made the CJEU the sole arbiter of European Union competence. Section iii of the European Communities Act 1972 requires the Britain courts to follow rulings of the CJEU on European Union law: European Union competence is a query of interpretation of the European Union Treaties. If the Britain Government did non similar a ruling of the CJEU, it must either persuade the other Member United States of America to renegotiate the Treaties, or ameliorate the European Communities Act.

Lord Mance suggested the Supreme Court could inquire the CJEU whether it meant to instruct every bit far every bit it appeared to receive got done inwards Rottmann. Mr Southey accepted it could.

The Supreme Court reserved judgment, to last given at a subsequently date.

*Simon Cox is the Migration Lawyer of the Open Society Justice Initiative in addition to business office of their legal squad inwards their intervention inwards Pham

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13

Share this post