In Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v HY (HB): [2018] UKUT 103 (AAC), Judge Ward, 23 March 2018, the claimant, HY, a Dutch national, had moved to the UK in December 2012.
In Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v HY (HB): [2018] UKUT 103 (AAC), Judge Ward, 23 March 2018, the claimant, HY, a Dutch national, had moved to the UK in December 2012. She was employed between May 2013 and September 2013 for 16 hours a week. Her children came to the UK in July 2014.
In October 2014 when her children started school and she was in receipt of income-based JSA, a claim for HB was made. This was turned down. Following the amendments in SI 2014/5391, it was not possible for HY to rely on receiving JSA on the basis that she was a jobseeker. But a FTT allowed HY’s appeal saying that she had a derivative right to reside as a primary carer who had been in employment in the UK.
The local authority appealed, submitting that it was necessary for there to have been a common period when the children were installed in the UK and the parent was a worker.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the local authority’s appeal holding that in order for a child to access the rights conferred by Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011, there was a requirement that the child must have been installed in the host Member State at a time when at least one of the child’s parents resided there as a worker.
Judge Ward observed that this was how the CJEU had ‘repeatedly chosen to define the nexus on which access to the right conferred by Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 and subsequently Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011 depends’ (at [40]).
The Upper Tribunal decision is available here Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v HY (HB): [2018] UKUT 103 (AAC)
