Zhu and Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-200/02), EU:C:2004:639; [2004] ECR I-9925; [2005] QB 325
EU citizenship: a child’s right of residence and her primary carer
A young EU citizen could rely on rights of free movement and residence without satisfying a minimum age requirement. The right of residence remained subject to the applicable conditions.
Facts
Catherine Zhu was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to a Chinese mother, Mrs Chen. She acquired Irish nationality under the applicable Irish nationality rules. Mother and child lived in Cardiff. Mrs Chen was Catherine’s primary carer and provided her financial support; they had sickness insurance and did not rely on public funds.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The Secretary of State refused their applications for long-term residence permits, on the basis that Catherine was not exercising rights under the EC Treaty and that her mother had no right of residence under the EEA Regulations. The Immigration Appellate Authority referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Decision
The Court held that Article 18 EC and Directive 90/364 conferred a right of residence for an indefinite period on a young EU citizen in Catherine’s circumstances, provided she had appropriate sickness insurance and sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the host state’s public finances. Those resources could come from her mother: the Directive did not require Catherine to possess resources independently. Her age and the fact that she had never moved between Member States did not exclude her from EU residence rights.
Mrs Chen was not a dependent relative entitled to residence under the Directive’s family-member provision: Catherine depended on her, rather than the other way round. Nevertheless, refusing residence to the child’s primary carer would deprive Catherine’s own right of useful effect. Mrs Chen therefore had a right to reside with her for the duration of the child’s residence.
The Court also rejected the argument that arranging Catherine’s birth to obtain Irish nationality prevented reliance on those rights. Her Irish nationality was lawfully acquired, and the United Kingdom could not impose an additional condition for recognising it.
