Case C-480/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 7 November 2008 — Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date: 2008-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, United Kingdom, interpretation of the law, non-working population, residence permit, rights of aliens

C 32/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

possible means of access for third parties to the system and that
the regulatory authority alone is responsible for
fixing or
approving prior to their entry into force, at least the methodolo-
gies used to calculate or establish the tariffs.

Finally, the Commission points out that, by exempting new
large natural gas facilities from the application of the directive,
the defendant has not correctly transposed Article 22(3)(d) of
the directive, with respect to the requirement to publish the
decision, and Article 22(3)(e) of the directive, concerning the
obligation to consult the other Member States or regulatory
authorities concerned by the interconnection of those infrastruc-
tures. Furthermore, the defendant has not made provision in its
national law for the obligation to notify without delay such an
exemption decision to the Commission, together with all the
other relevant information with respect to that decision, as is
provided for in Article 22(4) of the directive.

(1) OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal
(England and Wales) made on
7 November 2008 — Maria Teixeira v London Borough of
Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Civil Division)

(Case C-480/08)

(2009/C 32/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Teixeira

Defendants: London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for
the Home Department

Questions referred

In circumstances where (i) an EU citizen came to the United
Kingdom (ii) the EU citizen was for certain periods a worker in
the United Kingdom (iii) the EU citizen ceased to be a worker
but did not depart from the United Kingdom, (iv) the EU citizen
has not retained her status as a worker and has no right to
reside under Article 7 and has no right of permanent residence
under Article 16 of Directive 2004/38 (1) of the Council and
the European Parliament (v) the EU citizen's child entered educa-

tion at a time when the EU citizen was not a worker but the
child remained in education in the United Kingdom during
periods when the EU citizen was in work in the United
Kingdom, (vi) the EU citizen is the primary carer of her child
and (vii) the EU citizen and her child are not self-sufficient:

(1) does the EU citizen only enjoy a right of residence in the
United Kingdom if she satisfies the conditions set out in
Directive 2004/38 of
the European Parliament and the
Council of 29 April 2004?;

OR

(2)

(i) does the EU citizen 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
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004; and

in Directive 2004/38 of

(ii) if so, must she 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?;

(iii) if so, must the child have first entered education at a
time when the EU citizen was a worker in order to
enjoy a right to reside derived from Article 12 of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968, as inter-
preted by the Court of Justice, or is it sufficient that the
EU citizen has been a worker at some time after the
child commenced education?;

(iv) does any right that the EU citizen has to reside, as the
primary carer of a child in education, cease when her
child attains the age of eighteen?

(3) if the answer to question 1 is yes, is the position different in
circumstances such as the present case where the child
commenced education 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 but the mother did not become the primary carer and
did not claim the right to reside on the basis that she was
the primary carer of the child until March 2007, ie after the
date by which the Directive was to be implemented?

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) (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).