Source: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2019/03/guardianship-free-movement-and-rights.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:31:01+00:00

Document:
When is a child a ‘family member’? Many people regard others they love dearly as children, parents or other relatives, but the law is rather stricter. This strictness is particularly important where children are involved, in order to ensure their welfare, and where it impacts on immigration law. Moreover, different countries have different approaches to the legal definition of family members. All these issues come to a head in today’s judgment of the CJEU in SM, a case concerning the intersection between EU free movement law and the family law of non-EU countries.
The people listed in Article 3(2) are referred to in UK law implementing the Directive as ‘extended family members’, and I will use that term for brevity’s sake. In contrast, I’ll refer to the Article 2 family members, including ‘direct descendants’, as ‘core’ family members.
CJEU case law has touched on the definition of core family members several times, for instance clarifying the concept of ‘dependants’ in Article 2(2)(c): see most recently the CJEU judgment in Reyes, discussed here). But the Court had never been asked to clarify the meaning of ‘direct descendants’, although it had ruled when interpreting previous free movement legislation that children include an EU citizen’s step-children (Baumbast).
Moreover, in light of the reference to national legislation in Article 3(2), and in the absence of more specific rules in the Directive, the Court ruled that each Member State ‘has a wide discretion as regards the selection of factors to be taken into account’. But there is a core substantive obligation for Member States: their legislation must ‘contain criteria which are consistent with the normal meaning of the term “facilitate” ’—presumably as defined by the Court—‘and of the words relating to dependence used in Article 3(2), and which do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness’. Finally, the Court conceded that Article 3(2) was not directly effective, although ‘an applicant is entitled to a judicial review of whether the national legislation and its application have remained within the limits set by that Directive’. The subsequent judgment in Banger elaborated upon these procedural rights.
According to the UK Supreme Court judgment which referred questions to the CJEU, this case concerns a French couple married in the UK, who were married in 2001 but were unable to have children of their own. They went to Algeria and applied for the guardianship of a child by means of application of the kafala family law system (the term is also used to refer to a controversial system of migrant worker sponsorship, but this case only concerns family law). Under the Islamic approach to family law, adoption as such is not permitted, but kafala instead provides for a form of guardianship, and is particularly applied for the benefit of orphaned or abandoned children.
The Algerian authorities deemed the French couple suitable guardians, and they were soon accorded guardianship of a girl abandoned at birth (called ‘Susana’ by the Supreme Court: I’ll use that name rather than the impersonal ‘SM’). The husband returned to the UK to work, while the wife stayed in Algeria to look after Susana, seeking to obtain entry clearance for her. The UK authorities refused on the grounds that this was not an adoption as such, and so a long dispute through the legal system got underway.
At first instance, the immigration tribunal ruled in favour of the UK authorities, holding that Susana was neither a core family member or extended family member. On appeal, the Upper Tier tribunal ruled that she was an extended family member. The authorities appealed in turn to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that she was neither. The Supreme Court gave leave to appeal on the ‘extended family member’ point, but subsequently decided to consider both points. Ultimately, Lady Hale’s judgment (with which the other judges agreed) concluded that it was obvious that Susana was an extended family member, but decided to ask the CJEU whether she was a core family member.
First of all, the Court noted that the Directive ‘makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining the meaning and scope of’ the term ‘direct descendant’. Next, it followed (in line with the Court’s usual approach) that ‘the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require that the terms of that provision must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union’. In the absence of any definition of ‘direct descendant’, the term should be interpreted considering ‘not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part’.
the concept of a ‘direct descendant’ commonly refers to the existence of a direct parent-child relationship connecting the person concerned with another person. Where there is no parent-child relationship between the citizen of the Union and the child concerned, that child cannot be described as a ‘direct descendant’ of that citizen for the purposes of Directive 2004/38.
Elaborating further, ‘[a]lthough that concept primarily focuses on the existence of a biological parent-child relationship,’ the aim of the citizens’ Directive is to facilitate free movement rights, and so therefore it must be ‘construed broadly’, including the core family member definition. That meant ‘it covers any parent-child relationship, whether biological or legal’, including adopted children. However, it did not extend to a guardianship system which did not create a legal parent-child relationship.
However, the Court went on to confirm that Susana fell within the concept of an extended family member, as the relevant definition in the Directive is ‘capable of covering the situation of a child who has been placed with citizens of the Union under a legal guardianship system such as Algerian kafala and in respect of whom those citizens assume responsibility for its care, education and protection, in accordance with an undertaking entered into on the basis of the law of the child’s country of origin’. The Court reiterated Member States’ discretion in such cases as referred to in previous cases, but considerably narrowed the discretion on the facts of this case.
This was because of the right to family life in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Rights, which has the ‘same meaning and scope’ of the corresponding right in the European Convention on Human Rights. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights had confirmed that the child-guardian relationship under the kafala system ‘may fall under the definition of family life, having regard to the time spent living together, the quality of the relationship, and the role which the adult assumes in respect of the child’ (referring to Chbihi Loudoudi and Others v. Belgium). Article 8 ECHR ‘protects the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities and requires those authorities, where the existence of a family tie has been established, to enable that tie to be developed and to establish legal safeguards that render possible the child’s integration in his family’ (referring to Harroudj v. France and Chbihi Loudoudi).
Conversely, the assessment has to ‘take account of possible tangible and personal risks that the child concerned will be the victim of abuse, exploitation or trafficking’. But these risks can’t simply ‘be assumed’ just because the process of the Algerian kafala system ‘is less extensive’ than the adoption procedure in the State where the EU citizens are living, or because Algeria has not signed up to the 1996 Hague Convention on parental responsibility. Rather, it was necessary to weigh such factors up against the other factors which the Court set out.
the child placed under the Algerian kafala system and its guardians, who are citizens of the Union, are called to lead a genuine family life and that that child is dependent on its guardians, the requirements relating to the fundamental right to respect for family life, combined with the obligation to take account of the best interests of the child, demand, in principle, that that child be granted a right of entry and residence as one of the other family members of the citizens of the Union for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of [the citizens’ Directive], read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter, in order to enable the child to live with its guardians in their host Member State.
This analysis ‘applies a fortiori’ where the refusal to admit the child meant that one of the child’s guardians is in practice prevented from living together in a Member State because one of them needs to stay in a non-EU State to care for the child. As noted above, these were the facts in this case.
Finally, the Court declined to answer the Supreme Court’s separate question about refusing to admit a child if there was a risk of abuse, exploitation or trafficking, because the question was only raised in the event that Susana was considered a core family member. In any event, it should be noted that the Court referred to such issues being considered as part of the assessment of the application to admit Susana as an extended family member.
The Court’s confirmation that adopted children are covered by the concept of ‘direct descendant’ is not surprising, although it raises the question as to what happens if there are divergences between the adoption rules in the State where the child was adopted and the Member State in which the child lives now. Then again, the previous case law applying free movement law to cover step-children already raised questions (not yet answered) about the interaction between family law and free movement law (ie, who has custody of the step-child), on top of the long-standing case law about the impact of divorce and separation upon free movement rights (see most recently the CJEU’s NA judgment of 2016, which I discussed critically here). One quite striking feature of the Court’s ruling is its apparent assertion that only a parent-child relationship could fall within the concept of ‘direct descendant’: this is, with respect, not consistent with the obvious meaning of the words, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s assumption that it could also cover grand-children.
The ruling that the term ‘direct descendants’ could not apply to guardianship followed from the Court's definition of ‘direct descendants’ to mean a parent-child relationship, given that the kafala system deliberately does not classify the child’s guardians as parents. Despite that, the French couple in this case understandably sought to bring Susana within the scope of the ‘direct descendants’ concept, because they believed that otherwise the UK would retain residual discretion not to admit her as an extended family member.
This brings us to the most remarkable aspect of the Court’s ruling: the removal of the Member State’s discretion to admit Susana, on condition that the assessment of the factors was positive. Susana’s case appears to fall within the scope of the factors the Court refers to as part of that assessment (the age at which the child was placed under the Algerian kafala system, whether the child has lived with its guardians since its placement under that system, the closeness of the personal relationship with the guardians, the degree of dependency, and the assumption of responsibility for the child). It’s impossible from the outside of this case to know if the risks of abuse or trafficking exist, although of course in the best interests of the child the Court was right to confirm that the assessment should examine whether such factors are present. In other cases with different circumstances, the factors may point to a different conclusion than they do in this case. And today’s judgment raises the interesting question of whether there might be reduced discretion to refuse entry in other extended family cases too – notably cases involving children or partners, and where the impact of refusal might similarly be to prevent free movement rights from being exercised.
Finally, it’s worth putting this case in the broader context. For eight-year old Susana, abandoned at birth by her parents, her guardians have been litigating nearly her entire life to secure her right to stay with them in the UK. It took six years of litigation before four levels of the judicial system before they could confirm that the UK was even obliged to consider her application. Now the CJEU rules that (depending on the assessment) the UK may be obliged to let her stay. But that’s mainly because of the EU Charter of Rights; and this may be the last judgment concerning the UK and the Charter. If you seek its monument, look at this little girl’s case.
thank you for this very informative note.
I was wondering whether you consider that this judgment actually leads to (1) indirect discrimination based on religion and origin and (2) two different set of rights under 3(2) of the Directive dependent on the age of the applicant?
(1) while the Court does refer to the ECtHR judgments Harroudj v. France and Chbihi Loudoudi and Others v. Belgium, it only refers to the parts that suit it. These judgments, especially Haroudj, stated specifically that an adoption may be refused on the ground that the child is already under kafala. The reason for this was that kafala is intended not to separate to orginal parent-child relationship and the adoption would do exactly this. A kafala can therefore only be recognised as a guardianship. The applicants therefore are completely unable to change the situation since they cannot adopt Susana. Since they are unable to change the legal situation to make it fall under Art. 2(2)(c) because of this case law, solely on the ground of the origin and religion of the child, is this not a matter of indirect discrimination?
(2) Both Rahman and Banger do not grant a right to a long term residence permit, but only a facilitation which can be in the form of easier access to short term residence permits. Both cases concerned however adult persons. In SM it seems that the facilitation should be for a long term residence permit, but for a child. Do you think this is the case?
Thanks for your comments. On (1) the problem I have with this line of argument is that the notion of adoption is ruled out by the religious beliefs in question. So to treat this process as an adoption would actually be to disregard those beliefs. Any discrimination might stem from treating those children under kafala guardianship differently from those adopted; and as far as free movement law goes, the Court's approach at least narrows the gap. (2) What part of the judgment suggests some distinction as regards the length of the residence permit? In any event those covered by the Directive are not issued 'residence permits' as such. The application in this case was for entry clearance.

References: CJEU 

CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 2