I am sorry if i seem to say Zambrano is applicable to Chen. The judgement did not explicity say so.leonex4t5 wrote:However i disagree partially with your view that zambrano is applicable to chen. i believe that chen can argue article 20, but not use the actual judgement.
I was merely stating that, looking at the functions of the rights under the treaty and the purpose for which they were implemented, and the fact that there should be no hinderance to the exercise of the rights under the treaty, especially the right of free movement, a parent in chen case could argue in court that refusing them the right to work in the UK, is an hinderance to the free movement and residence rights of the children.
The parents will relocate to the country of the child's birth and nationality, which will offer them better condition, than the one offered them when the child exercised her rights of free movement.
This could not be in accordance with the rights under the treaty, and i don't think the court in Zambrano, were seeking to create such effect.
This is an arguable matter in court. That is all i am saying.