| Popis: |
The Ibrahimand Teixeira cases concern the rights that members of an EU worker' s family enjoy in anotherMember State. The Court' s rulings, delivered on the same day, focus on residency and educational rightsfor children of former migrant workers in the host state, and the derived residency rights for their primarycarers. Case law has interpreted Regulation 1612/68 to mean that in circumstances where the migrantworker is no longer working in the host state, the child retains a free-standing right to education thereand his/her primary carer derives a right of residence from the child, regardless of the carer' s nationality.The principal novelty of the Ibrahim and Teixeira rulings is to isolate this interpretation from the apparenteffects of Directive 2004/38, meaning that residence rights are conferred on economic migrants and theirfamilies regardless of whether the family subsequently becomes a burden on the social assistance systemof the host state. Such a conclusion could have serious ramifications. In light of the new permanentresidence provisions beginning to take practical effect across the Union, this article assesses the rulingsand the extent to which the outcomes can be applied to economically inactive EU citizens with childrenin another Member State' s education system. |
