EEA citizen: 3 month right of residence

[chaoclive]

Hi there

I know that EEA citizens have a 3 month right of residence in the UK without having to be a qualified person, I'm just not very sure when this 3 month right starts.

For example: If I enter the UK on 10th July and stay for 3 weeks without exercising treaty rights. Then I leave, visit another EEA country for a weekend and come back after 3 days is that country, does that re-set my 3 months?

I'm not trying to cheat the system, but I'm really not sure.

Thanks a lot
CC

[sheraz7]

Initial 3 months of right of residence applies once unless the continuous residence breaks such as by being absent for more than 6 months or 12 months (in circumstances such as studying & pregnancy etc). When the continuous residence breaks then the initial right of residence (3 months) will restart again.

[chaoclive]

Super Sheraz... Thanks a lot. That's very clear!

[naija99]

Can your non-EEA family members join you during the initial 3 month period?

[Hubba]

Can your non-EEA family members join you during the initial 3 month period?

Yes, they can, with the same rights of the EEA national.

[el patron]

Initial 3 months of right of residence applies once unless the continuous residence breaks such as by being absent for more than 6 months or 12 months (in circumstances such as studying & pregnancy etc). When the continuous residence breaks then the initial right of residence (3 months) will restart again.

Sorry this is not correct, the initial right of residence applies upon each admission/entry to the UK regardless. The only limitation placed upon this was the recent 1.1.14 amendments to the EEA regulations designed to deal with abuse of the initial right to reside, this only gives the power SSHD to investigate and subsequently make a decision as to whether a right to reside should be withdrawn in cases were repeated re-entry is deemed to be an abuse designed to circumvent the requirement to be a qualified person. The explantory memorandum issued in respect of the 1.1.14 amendment is actually helpful as it highlights the 'resetting' upon each entry.

[chaoclive]

Wow. That's quite a big difference

Thanks El Patron.

[Universal soldier]

I fully agreed with GURU answer and not satisfied from el patron answer. If initial right of residence of 3 months keeps triggering upon each admission/entry then its a powerful loopholes and people with small treaty rights evidences become permanent resident just by booking travel tickets during 5 years.
This give really full sense as GURU said that it applies once for an unbroken residence period.

[el patron]

I fully agreed with GURU answer and not satisfied from el patron answer. If initial right of residence of 3 months keeps triggering upon each admission/entry then its a powerful loopholes and people with small treaty rights evidences become permanent resident just by booking travel tickets during 5 years.
This give really full sense as GURU said that it applies once for an unbroken residence period.

The sponsor in this case was resident in the UK without being a qualified person and was only accompanying her spouse from India, she was not a resident of India -

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 02805-2013

The Home Office caseworker guidelines are also relevant they are available here -https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -03-04.pdf

and I quote from paragraph 2 -

"However, there are those who abuse this right by leaving the UK shortly before the three month period expires and then re-entering the UK, with the intention of circumventing the requirements for an extended right of residence, and benefitting from another three month initial right of residence. When repeated, this behaviour means the EEA national can reside in the UK indefinitely, without ever exercising Treaty rights."

[Universal soldier]

Don't mind these case studies. Ask a question to yourself that when the regulations defines that even a person travel outside uk and live outside uk for 6 or 12 months then he is still having residence in uk then how can be possible that initial right of residence applies again again for a person who is already having residence. Yes if his absence exceeds then he will break residence then it will once again applies. The thing you understanding or thinking wrong.

[el patron]

Don't mind these case studies. Ask a question to yourself that when the regulations defines that even a person travel outside uk and live outside uk for 6 or 12 months then he is still having residence in uk then how can be possible that initial right of residence applies again again for a person who is already having residence. Yes if his absence exceeds then he will break residence then it will once again applies. The thing you understanding or thinking wrong.

I think you have answered your own question.


The 3 months right to reside commences upon admission to the United Kingdom

this was the quote from the judgment in Bali -
“An EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom for a period not exceeding three months beginning on the date on which he is admitted to the United Kingdom provided that he holds a valid national identity card or passport issued by an EEA State”.

Thus the only proviso is the holding of an EEA passport of identity card.

[Universal soldier]

How can i answer my own question when i am not asking rather repeating same what GURU had already replied
i believe now you got answer with the quote the same is already be mentioned at above.

[el patron]

How can i answer my own question when i am not asking rather repeating same what GURU had already replied
I believe now you got answer with the quote the same is already be mentioned at above.

Assertions are simply that. However it seems no-one else has quoted case-law, regulations or even Home Office internal guidance which state to the contrary of what I have expounded. The directive is unequivocal about the initial three month period, that is why the Home Office have a problem with it, hence the attempt to restrict it.

[dalebutt]

Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.

[el patron]

Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.

It would be useful if case-law or internal guidance were there to evidence the same, rather the opposite being the case, unless someone has had sight of such that is unknown to me, I have more than just a personal interest in such things!

[Universal soldier]

Concept is crystal clear now, although there are few aspects which still unclear in directive but certainly not that one because while keeping in mind the concept of continuous residence it become clear. And we never listen too long millions of post here that someone get initial right on each entry.

[el patron]

Concept is crystal clear now, although there are few aspects which still unclear in directive but certainly not that one because while keeping in mind the concept of continuous residence it become clear. And we never listen too long millions of post here that someone get initial right on each entry.

On your reasoning I find it quite astounding that the President of the Upper Tribunal didn't find it as crystal clear as you suggest when this precise scenario was before him, perhaps your knowledge is of more relevance, but that won't be what I'll be presenting on behalf of appellants, that isn't what they pay me to do.

[dalebutt]

Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.

It would be useful if case-law or internal guidance were there to evidence the same, rather the opposite being the case, unless someone has had sight of such that is unknown to me, I have more than just a personal interest in such things!

Louis is a Belgian national. On 9.1.14 he came to the UK to look for work. Having been unable to find a job, he claimed JSA (IB). The date of claim was 14.4.14. It emerged from questions asked in relation to the claim that, since arriving, Louis had lived in a rented flat in the UK and that he had spent the period 2.3.14 to 15.3.14 in Belgium. His father had died and he had attended the funeral and had stayed in his mother’s house. The DM decided that, as at 14.4.14, Louis had lived in the UK continuously for 3 months. The 2 week absence did not mean that Louis had ceased to live in the UK.
Example 2
Mia is a German national. She came to the UK alone on 2.1.14 in order to look for work. She rented a bedsit on a short-term one month tenancy and stayed in the UK until 1.2.14 when she returned to Germany. In Germany she stayed with her husband and children in the family home until 30.3.14. She did no work in Germany during that time. When she came back (again alone) to the UK on 30.3.14, she took up a 6 month
11
tenancy on a flat. On 7.4.14 Mia claimed JSA(IB). On 8.4.14, the DM decided that Mia had a right to reside as a jobseeker but that she was not to be treated as habitually resident in the UK because she had not lived here for the three months prior to her claim. The DM therefore decided that Mia was not entitled to JSA(IB).

This is an extract from the DWP assessment of EU nationals residing the UK for benefit purpose. I copied this from the link posted by Obie few days ago.

[el patron]

Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.

It would be useful if case-law or internal guidance were there to evidence the same, rather the opposite being the case, unless someone has had sight of such that is unknown to me, I have more than just a personal interest in such things!

Louis is a Belgian national. On 9.1.14 he came to the UK to look for work. Having been unable to find a job, he claimed JSA (IB). The date of claim was 14.4.14. It emerged from questions asked in relation to the claim that, since arriving, Louis had lived in a rented flat in the UK and that he had spent the period 2.3.14 to 15.3.14 in Belgium. His father had died and he had attended the funeral and had stayed in his mother’s house. The DM decided that, as at 14.4.14, Louis had lived in the UK continuously for 3 months. The 2 week absence did not mean that Louis had ceased to live in the UK.
Example 2
Mia is a German national. She came to the UK alone on 2.1.14 in order to look for work. She rented a bedsit on a short-term one month tenancy and stayed in the UK until 1.2.14 when she returned to Germany. In Germany she stayed with her husband and children in the family home until 30.3.14. She did no work in Germany during that time. When she came back (again alone) to the UK on 30.3.14, she took up a 6 month
11
tenancy on a flat. On 7.4.14 Mia claimed JSA(IB). On 8.4.14, the DM decided that Mia had a right to reside as a jobseeker but that she was not to be treated as habitually resident in the UK because she had not lived here for the three months prior to her claim. The DM therefore decided that Mia was not entitled to JSA(IB).

This is an extract from the DWP assessment of EU nationals residing the UK for benefit purpose. I copied this from the link posted by Obie few days ago.

that is interesting dalebutt thank you. However that reflects the position of the appellant in the case I referred to in the upper tribunal were that EEA national sponsor had resided all her life in the UK also and remained habitually resident, she nevertheless gained the benefit of the initial right to reside upon admission to the UK, as did her husband, thus her husband's appeal was allowed.

[dalebutt]

If I have read the case properly, it is a little at variance in my opinion to the present scenario, the findings of the appelants representation is very telling, it is very easy to ignore the findings if one wasn't reminded of them.

The ECO should have referenced Regulation 12 ……… [and] …. has confused the requirement focusing on Regulation 6. However, Regulation 13 is applicable to this application which satisfies an entitlement to reside for an initial period of three months without requiring exercise of Treaty Rights.”

I suppose if one has resided in the UK for a certain period they will be deemed habitually resident, if they break that residence, on return they will not be able to meet the habitual residency test.

[UKBA HUNTER]

The more mouths the more assumptions with confusions. I think that query may vary in the context of claiming benefits and EEA route application but we are talking here in the context of EEA route application. And i believe that the guru and soldier is answering this question in the light of EEA route application where continuous residence backed by treaty rights are highly imperative for claiming PR and their interpretation are logical and correct. This concept is associated with continuous residence and yes if EU national is visiting UK just for few days just a small trip without the intention of residing there and then later in future again enters with the intention of residing here then that initial right of residence (3 months) will start again. But for an application for PR based on 5 years of continuous stay backed by treaty rights then it will apply once.
Moreover, there are a number of case studies/judgments which based on individual circumstances which we cannot drag into every resembling case.

[dalebutt]

Whilst I agree with your point, the assessment of a worker within the context of Community legislation are the same be it, its application in the EEA reg or for benefit purpose, it doesn't matter, the assessment cannot and will not change in either scenario.

[Universal soldier]

The more mouths the more assumptions with confusions. I think that query may vary in the context of claiming benefits and EEA route application but we are talking here in the context of EEA route application. And i believe that the guru and soldier is answering this question in the light of EEA route application where continuous residence backed by treaty rights are highly imperative for claiming PR and their interpretation are logical and correct. This concept is associated with continuous residence and yes if EU national is visiting UK just for few days just a small trip without the intention of residing there and then later in future again enters with the intention of residing here then that initial right of residence (3 months) will start again. But for an application for PR based on 5 years of continuous stay backed by treaty rights then it will apply once.
Moreover, there are a number of case studies/judgments which based on individual circumstances which we cannot drag into every resembling case.

Fully agreed

[el patron]

Habitual residence here referred to is of relevance for social security cases, the Upper Tribunal decision was pure a immigration case based on the EEA regulations and the directive with no social security element. I have the assistance of having the full case papers and the argument that the Home Office presented was essentially the point that has tried to be asserted here, being that more than just admission and possession of an EEA passport or ID card is needed to activate the initial rights of residence the tribunal did not accept their submissions on that point. The appellant's refusal decision from the ECO was effectively on the basis of the points presented in disagreement with me earlier in the thread, it did not hold water in the end