Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case...

Facts

• Mr. Carpenter, a Philippine national, was married to Mrs. Carpenter, a British national residing in the United Kingdom.
• Mr. Carpenter was refused leave to remain in the UK.
• Mrs. Carpenter operated a business providing services to clients outside the UK, exercising her right to free movement of services under Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU).
• The refusal of residence raised the question whether such a restriction impermissibly limited Mrs. Carpenter’s freedom to deliver services to other Member States, particularly if she would have to leave the EU to preserve her family life.

Issues

1. Whether the refusal to grant Mr. Carpenter leave to remain constituted a restriction on Mrs. Carpenter’s freedom to provide services under EU law.
2. Whether interference with the right to family life could be justified by public policy, public security, or public health.
3. Whether the restriction was proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by the national authorities.

Decision

• The ECJ found that refusing a right of residence to the non-EU spouse of a Member State national providing cross-border services could indirectly restrict that national’s freedom to provide services.
• The Court held that the effectiveness of Community law would be undermined if such indirect interference were permitted without proper justification.
• It was determined that for any interference with family life to be justified, national authorities must demonstrate a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy, which was not established in this case.
• The overstaying of Mr. Carpenter’s visa was not considered a sufficiently serious ground to justify the restriction.
• The restriction was found to be disproportionate to the aim pursued, given the lack of criminal activity and the nature of Mrs. Carpenter’s business.

Legal Principles

• A restriction on the residence rights of a third-country national married to an EU citizen may constitute an unlawful restriction on the citizen’s own free movement rights, even if imposed indirectly.
• Any interference with the right to family life must be justified by sufficiently serious reasons of public policy and be proportionate in light of the legitimate aims pursued.
• Mere administrative grounds, such as overstaying a visa, will not suffice as justification for interference with fundamental freedoms under EU law.
• The principle of proportionality requires that measures restricting EU rights must not exceed what is necessary to attain legitimate objectives.

Conclusion

The ECJ held that the refusal to grant residence to Mr. Carpenter unlawfully restricted Mrs. Carpenter’s rights under Article 49 EC, as national authorities failed to demonstrate a genuine and serious threat to public policy; proportionality and the right to family life required that such a restriction should not be imposed in the circumstances.