Transcript The Rights of EEA National Victims of Human Trafficking

SPECIAL NON-CONTRIBUTORY
BENEFITS FOR EU MIGRANTS:
A TRI-CITY PROJECT
The UK Experience with Special NonContributory Benefits
Sarah St Vincent, Legal Project Manager
Adam Weiss, Legal Director
14 May 2012
Case Study Focus on a Benefit
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
The purpose of this benefit is to provide financial support
to people who are unable to work due to mental or
physical disability or illness. While they are receiving the
benefit, individuals are subjected to medical tests to see if
there is work which is suitable for them and, if there is,
they are required to work with an adviser to find such
work.
Case Study 1 – Mr B
Mr B’s Story
Mr B is from Latvia. He entered the UK in 2004. He worked at
various times between 2004 and November 2010. He never
registered his work under the UK’s ‘Worker Registration
Scheme’. He received income-base Jobseeker’s Allowance at
some times while he was unemployed. In late 2010 he
contracted multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis and
was at risk of homelessness. He applied for income-related
Employment and Support Allowance and was refused on the
basis that he was not ‘habitually resident’ in the United
Kingdom.
Employment and Support Allowance Legislation
Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008 - Regulation 70
(1) “Person from abroad” means, subject to the following provisions of this regulation, a claimant who is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel
Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.
(2) A claimant must not be treated as habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland unless the claimant has
a right to reside in (as the case may be) the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland other than a right to reside which falls
within paragraph (3).
(3) A right to reside falls within this paragraph if it is one which exists by virtue of, or in accordance with, one or more of the following—
(a)regulation 13 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006(1);
(b)regulation 14 of those Regulations, but only in a case where the right exists under that regulation because the claimant is—
(i)a jobseeker for the purpose of the definition of “qualified person” in regulation 6(1) of those Regulations; or
(ii)a family member (within the meaning of regulation 7 of those Regulations) of such a jobseeker;
(c)Article 6 of Council Directive No. 2004/38/EC(2); or
(d)Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (in a case where the claimant is a person seeking work in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands,
the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland).
(4) A claimant is not a person from abroad if the claimant is—
(a)a worker for the purposes of Council Directive No. 2004/38/EC;
(b)a self-employed person for the purposes of that Directive;
(c)a person who retains a status referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) pursuant to Article 7(3) of that Directive;
(d)a person who is a family member of a person referred to in sub-paragraph (a), (b) or (c) within the meaning of Article 2 of that Directive;
(e)a person who has a right to reside permanently in the United Kingdom by virtue of Article 17 of that Directive;
(f)a person who is treated as a worker for the purpose of the definition of “qualified person” in regulation 6(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area)
Regulations 2006 pursuant to—
(i)regulation 5 of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004(3) (application of the 2006 Regulations in relation to a national of the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia or the Slovak Republic who is an “accession State worker requiring registration”); or
(ii)regulation 6 of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006(4) (right of residence of a Bulgarian or Romanian who is an “accession
State national subject to worker authorisation”);
…
European Commission’s View
Where the benefits that include a ‘Right to Reside
Test’ as eligibility criteria are social security benefits
covered by Regulation 1408/71 on the coordination of
social security schemes, I think that the Test is…
contrary to equal treatment guaranteed by Article 3 of
Regulation 1408/71 when it is the reason that a
person who is covered by this Regulation is ineligible
for the benefit.
Letter of 11 February 2010.
Arguments Put Forward For Mr B
2 Arguments Made for Mr B, both that he has acquired permanent residence in the
UK under Article 16(1) of EU Directive 2004/38 (‘Union citizens who have resided
legally for a continuous period of five years in the host Member State shall have
the right of permanent residence there’):
1.
It would be disproportionate to discount his time spent in work because of the
Worker Registration Scheme. This was unlikely to succeed because of UK
case law (the House of Lords Zalewska judgment) and because Mr B’s work
history is patchy.
2. Mr B has been self-sufficient under Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive (covering
those who ‘have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members
not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member
State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness
insurance cover in the host Member State’) during the periods when he was
working and when he was receiving income-based JSA.
A third argument was made that there is a lacuna in the Directive and that the
lacuna should be filled directly by Article 21 TFEU. This was done in a past UK
case.
Determination in Mr B’s Case
First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
He has worked in the UK but this work has not been registered under the
WRS. This means, in simple terms, that he cannot have established worker
status, let alone retained that status at any time.
He cannot qualify as being self-sufficient at any time, because he has not had
comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the UK. He has (quite properly)
received treatment under the NHS but, in the absence of a provision where
these costs could be recovered from Latvia, this does not count as
“comprehensive sickness insurance”.
Article 21 cannot confer rights which go beyond rights conferred by Directive
2004/38, but this does not apply where it can be shown that there is a lacuna
in the Directive…. Part of the problem here is that Mr Butans did not apply to
register under the WRS because he did not know that he had to. This, in my
experience, is not that unusual…. This does not, though, bring Mr Butans
within a lacuna.
Comments on How We Can Help Mr B?
Case Study Involving income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 (as amended by the Social Security (Persons from Abroad)
Amendment Regulations 2006) – Regulation 85A
(1) “Person from abroad” means, subject to the following provisions of this regulation, a claimant who is not habitually resident
in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.
(2) No claimant shall be treated as habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the
Republic of Ireland unless he has a right to reside in (as the case may be) the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of
Man or the Republic of Ireland other than a right to reside which falls within paragraph (3).
(3) A right to reside falls within this paragraph if it is one which exists by virtue of, or in accordance with, one or more of the
following—
(a)regulation 13 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006(2); or
(b)Article 6 of Council Directive No. 2004/38/EC(3).
(4) A claimant is not a person from abroad if he is—
(a)a worker for the purposes of Council Directive No. 2004/38/EC;
(b)a self-employed person for the purposes of that Directive;
(c)a person who retains a status referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) pursuant to Article 7(3) of that Directive;
(d)a person who is a family member of a person referred to in sub-paragraph (a), (b) or (c) within the meaning of Article 2 of
that Directive;
(e)a person who has a right to reside permanently in the United Kingdom by virtue of Article 17 of that Directive;
(f)a person who is an accession State worker requiring registration who is treated as a worker for the purpose of the definition of
“qualified person” in regulation 6(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 pursuant to regulation 5
of the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004(4); ….
Case Study 2
Mr S’s Story
Mr S is from Lithuania. He has been living in the UK since
2004. He has worked on and off, doing mostly seasonal
jobs. He didn’t register his work under the Worker
Registration Scheme for the first few years. He then
registered his later jobs, but never completed twelve
months under any of those jobs. He worked in a seasonal
job from April 2010 until August 2010. He registered that
work in July 2010. After he finished his job, he applied for
income-based JSA. He was refused because he was not
‘habitually resident’ in the UK (i.e. no right to reside).
Relevant Legislation
Article 7(3)(c) of EU Directive 2004/38
For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a Union citizen who is no longer a worker or self-employed
person shall retain the status of worker or self-employed person in the following circumstances…
(c) he/she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after completing a fixed-term
employment contract of less than a year or after having become involuntarily unemployed during
the first twelve months and has registered as a job-seeker with the relevant employment office.
In this case, the status of worker shall be retained for no less than six months;
Regulation 5 of the UK Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004
(2) An accession State worker requiring registration shall be treated as a worker for the purpose
of the definition of “qualified person” in regulation 5(1) of the 2000 Regulations only during a
period in which he is working in the United Kingdom for an authorised employer.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), regulation 5(2) of the 2000 Regulations shall not apply to an
accession State worker requiring registration who ceases to work.
European Commission’s View
For EU-8 nationals who are subject to the WRS, the WRS
determines that those working for an authorised employer have
a right to reside for the purpose of the benefits. However, if
they end the authorised employment before having completed
an uninterrupted period of 12 months, the WRS derogates from
Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38 and provides that, even if they
are in a situation of Article 7(3), they do not retain the status of
worker, and as a consequences, the right to reside as a worker
pursuant to Directive 2004/38. In my view, this derogation from
Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38 is not covered by the
transitional arrangements on free movement of workers…
because the UK does not de facto restrict access to its labour
market which might make such a derogation necessary.
Letter of 11 February 2010.
Determination
The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
determined last week that Mr S was not entitled to incomebased JSA because the tribunal felt unable to set aside the
UK legislation and did not have the necessary permission
to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the
European Union
Comments on How We Can Help Mr S?
Women and the Right-to-Reside Test I
• Women are systematically disadvantaged by the rightto-reside test because many are caring for small
children, which is not currently recognised as work or
self-employment.
• Recognised human trafficking survivors find that they
cannot obtain benefits because they have not been
‘working’ or ‘self-employed’.
Human Trafficking and EEA Nationals
Women and the Right-to-Reside Test II
• Survivors of domestic violence have often been
prevented from working by abusive partners or may be
dependent on showing an abusive partner’s status in
order to obtain benefits.
• Pregnant women face difficulties if they stop working or
seeking work.
Case Study 3
Ms M’s Story
M is from Latvia. She came to the UK in 2005 and worked for some
time (without registering). She then went back to Latvia to look after
a sick relative. She was trafficked back to the UK in 2006 and
sexually exploited in the UK until 2007. She escaped her traffickers
with the help of a client with whom she then began living. She
applied for income-based JSA shortly before she was recognised as
a victim of human trafficking. She was refused JSA. She had a child
not long after she was recognised as a victim of trafficking and her
child’s young age has prevented her from working. She received
Income Support while her permit was valid. Her JSA was refused
because of the WRS and because she was not recognised as
permanently resident. Her appeal continues.
Arguments Being Made for Ms M
• Similar to Mr S – she worked, registered, briefly before she
applied for JSA.
• Human trafficking survivors have a sui generis legal status
and should be treated as exercising residence rights or not
subject to the WRS.
• Proportionality argument: she should be recognised as
permanently resident (or at least as exercising Treaty rights)
because this is the interpretation most consistent with the
Charter.
Comments on How We Can Help Ms M?
Case Study 4
Ms A’s Story
Ms A is a Czech national over 60. She and her partner left
the Czech Republic after a house fire destroyed their
home and possessions. They were trafficked together for
the purposes of identity theft (loans) and labour
exploitation. After they discovered what happened, she
had a heart attack and a stroke. Because of the stroke she
is unable to take up self-employment or work. She has
been refused State Pension Credit on the ground that she
has no right to reside. She was recognised as a trafficking
victim but was not given a permit.
What We Are Doing for Ms A
• Wrote a letter to the Pension Service to which they have so
far responded positively (waiting for an assessment of
whether she is permanently incapacitated).
• Prepared but not yet sent a letter to go with an application
for a permanent residence card.
Comments on How We Can Help Ms A?
Case Study 5
Ms R’s Story
Ms R is a Polish national in her 60s. She has been living in
the UK for 12 years. She originally entered clandestinely
and has never worked in accordance with the WRS. She
was in a car accident a few years ago and suffered serious
fractures to her shoulder and an injury to her leg, meaning
that her mobility is limited. In early 2012 she developed
life-threatening pneumonia. In spite of her condition the
local authority found she had no right to reside and
evicted her from council housing. She became street
homeless and was taken in by an all-male shelter. She
tried to claim State Pension Credit along with other
benefits.
What We Are Doing for Ms R
• Trying to set up a meeting with the local authority.
• Advice being prepared.
• Concern that the local authority may pressure her to return
to Poland (trying to arrange meetings with the Polish
Embassy).
Comments on How We Can Help Ms R?
Case Study 6
Ms H’s Story
Ms H is a Hungarian national. She was working in the UK
as of mid-2011. She left work due to illness and
subsequently had twins. One of the twins is severely
disabled and receives the highest rate of Disability Living
Allowance (care component). He has difficulty breathing
and has to be fed through a tube. Ms H does not believe
she will be able to find a suitable carer. Ms H herself is
currently receiving Carer’s Allowance to look after him.
However, she has been refused Income Support on the
ground that she doesn’t have a right to reside.
What We Are Doing for Ms H
• We have sent her advice and sent it to her adviser.
• Includes a proportionality argument.
• Includes an argument that looking after a child (particularly a
child who is disabled and in respect of whom one is
receiving DLA and CA) constitutes work or self-employment.
Comments on How We Can Help Ms H?
Case Study 4 – Other Problems for Women in the UK Under
EU Social Security Law
Romanian Sex Workers in London
The AIRE Centre has been contacted by two organisations working with
Romanian sex workers in a neighbourhood in East London. When they
present at the local hospital requesting to terminate a pregnancy, they are
told that they must pay for the procedure in advance. Normally British
Citizens are not required to pay at all for this procedure.
AIRE’s perspective:
1. This is unlawful under UK law (the National Health Service (Charges to
Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011) – they are ‘ordinarily resident’.
2. This is unlawful under Article 4 of EU Regulation 883/04.
3. This is unlawful under Article 24 of EU Directive 2004/38, as these
women are probably ‘self-employed’ in the UK.
Other Recent UK Case Law
• Czop and Punakova – whether the Teixeira and Ibrahim
rules apply to self-employed persons and the question of
‘overlap’
• MS – about the dating of worker registration certificates
• HG – about whether family members of British Citizens are
exercising residence rights
• Lekpo Bozua – about comprehensive sickness insurance
• SW – spouses of British Citizens, the application of
Zambrano and the relationship between comprehensive
sickness insurance, NHS care and permanent residence.
• FV – sellers of the ‘Big Issue’ magazine
Contact Details
[email protected]
[email protected]