Mirga v Secretary of state for Work and Pensions

Mirga v Secretary of state for Work and Pensions

The Court held that the Workers Registration Scheme and the denial of Income Support to the appellant were proportionate and lawful under EU law, as established in Zalewska. The distinction between lawful presence and right to reside was decisive; the appellant was lawfully present but not entitled to a right of residence for benefit purposes. Fundamental rights arguments did not require recognition of a right to reside within the meaning of the relevant regulations.

Parties
Appellant: Mirga; Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Support, Right of Residence, Proportionality, Fundamental Rights, Workers Registration Scheme
Social Security European Union Law Immigration Income Support Right of Residence Proportionality Fundamental Rights Workers Registration Scheme

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mirga

Appellant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of Income Support to an A8 national violates EU law principles of proportionality and fundamental rights
  2. 2 Whether the Workers Registration Scheme is disproportionate in its effect on the appellant
  3. 3 Distinction between lawful presence and right to reside for purposes of social security

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Workers Registration Scheme and the denial of Income Support to the appellant were proportionate and lawful under EU law, as established in Zalewska. The distinction between lawful presence and right to reside was decisive; the appellant was lawfully present but not entitled to a right of residence for benefit purposes. Fundamental rights arguments did not require recognition of a right to reside within the meaning of the relevant regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no further orders.