Case C-310/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) lodged on 11 July 2008 — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date: 2008-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family law, foreign national, free movement of workers, freedom of movement, interpretation of the law, residence permit

C 247/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Poland has failed to ensure an effective separation of regulatory
functions from activities linked to the exercise of rights of
property or control.

The Polish State has extensive shareholdings in numerous tele-
communications undertakings. At the same time, the national
regulatory authority in Poland is appointed by the Prime
Minister, who is entitled freely to dismiss it at any time without
providing reasons and on whom the Minister for Finance and
the Minister for Infrastructures are also fully dependent.

The absence of provisions defining the duration of the term of
the national regulatory authority and the lack of an exhaustive
list of conditions allowing for its dismissal results in its being
dependent to a significant extent on the Prime Minister and fails
to guarantee that those market participants in which the State
holds shares will be treated in the same way as other market
participants.

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33-50.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(Civil Division) (England and Wales) lodged on 11 July
2008 — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan
Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-310/08)

(2008/C 247/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: London Borough of Harrow

Defendants: Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the
Home Department

Questions referred

In circumstances where (i) a non-EU national spouse and her EU
national children accompanied an EU national who came to the
United Kingdom (ii) the EU national was in the United Kingdom
as a worker (iii) the EU national then ceased to be a worker and
subsequently left the United Kingdom (iv) the EU national, the
non-EU national spouse and children are not self-sufficient and
are dependent upon social assistance in the United Kingdom
(v) the children commenced primary education in the United

Kingdom shortly after their arrival there while the EU national
was a worker:

(1) do the spouse and children only enjoy a right of residence
in the United Kingdom if they satisfy the conditions set out
in Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 (1)?;

OR

(2)

(i) do they enjoy a right to reside derived from Article 12
of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 (2), as interpreted by the Court of Justice, without
being required to satisfy the conditions set out in Direc-
tive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004;

and

(ii) if so, must they have access to sufficient resources so as
not to become a burden on the social assistance system
of the host Member State during their proposed period
of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance
cover in the host Member State?;

(3) if the answer to question 1 is yes, is the position different in
circumstances such as the present case where the children
commenced primary education and the EU-national worker
ceased working prior
to the date by which Directive
2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 April 2004 was to be implemented by the Member
States?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and
repealing Directives
72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and
93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77).

64/221/EEC,

68/360/EEC,

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
for workers within the Community

on freedom of movement
(OJ L 257, p. 2).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 14 July
2008 — Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w
Poznaniu

(Case C-314/08)

(2008/C 247/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny