Case summary of Chen V. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) QB 325
Immigration law: Migration of the European Union State citizen within EU country
A European Union citizen has a right of free movement within any country in the European Union and there is no minimum age requirement to exercise such right.
A child born to Chinese mother in Ireland obtained Irish citizenship and lived together with her mother in the United Kingdom. The mother subsequently sought for a long term residence in the United Kingdom for the child and herself as principal carer. The application was refused because as a child, she was unable to exercise her rights of movement under the Council Directive 90/364 Art 18 (1) as such has no right to reside in the UK.
The European Court held that the applicants have right to live in the UK as there is no minimum age requirement to exercise the directive, it is irrelevant whether the child is exercising the right or not.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article summarises the European Court of Justice decision in Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-200/02) [2004] ECR I-9925, which established that an EU citizen child has a right of residence in a Member State regardless of age, and that a third-country national primary carer may derive a right of residence from the child. The core legal principles stated are accurate as a matter of EU law history.
However, readers must be aware of a fundamental change in the legal landscape: following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, EU free movement law no longer applies in the UK. The Free Movement of Persons Directive and Article 21 TFEU (formerly Article 18 EC, on which Chen was based) ceased to have direct effect in UK domestic law at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2021. The EU Settlement Scheme now governs the residence rights of EU citizens and their family members in the UK. The Chen principle therefore has no ongoing direct application to immigration decisions made in the UK after that date, though it may retain academic and comparative relevance. Students should treat this case as a significant piece of EU law history rather than current UK immigration law.
Additionally, the article cites Council Directive 90/364 as the relevant instrument. This Directive was replaced and consolidated by Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizens’ Rights Directive), under which the Chen principle was subsequently applied within EU Member States. This distinction does not affect the accuracy of the summary of the case itself, but students should be aware of the updated legislative framework as it stood within the EU.
