European Court says that to gain entry into the UK, a visa is not required by family members

European Court says that to gain entry into the UK, a visa is not required by family members who are non-EU
Judge’s ruling in the McCarthy court case is an additional setback in the British government’s campaign to control EU immigration
The court of justice of Europe has ruled that the requirement for a blanket visa on members of a family who originate from beyond Europe but still possess valid rights to EU residency cannot be imposed by Britain.
The campaign by the government to curtail immigration originating from the EU has suffered a further setback because of this decision.
The Luxembourg judges concluded that the freedom of movement in the EU trumped claims by Britain that visas were required to address abuse of the system of residency cards in the EU, and equally went further to state that Sean McCarthy’s wife who is a national of Colombia and also a dual Irish and British national residing in Spain did not require a UK family permit or visa in order to come to Britain.
The court case was referred to the ECJ by the high court after McCarthy protested the insistence of the UK on a visa or family permit with six months validity for his spouse Helena on each occasion that they visited Britain. The family has two children who are both British citizens. The ECJ reached a decision that the Spanish residence card of Helena McCarthy gave her entitlement to travel and visit Britain without initially getting a UK visa while in Spain.
A spokesman for the government expressed the disappointment of the UK in the case’s judgment. He however felt that it would not be appropriate to make any further comment since the case was going to still return for a final judgment in the high court of the UK.
The argument of the government being entitled to enforce a blanket entry stipulation is based on its view of the residence permits system of a couple of countries in the EU as being suspicious and easy to abuse. This view was dismissed by the EJC which ruled that wherever there existed any suspicion; such cases should be investigated individually and thereafter imposed with visa requirement, but not by a system that is general and affecting all.
The court of justice stated that the legislation in the UK being reviewed has a requirement of an entry permit must be gotten before gaining access into the territory of the UK, even where the relevant personnel do not feel that the member of family of an EU national may be partaking in fraud or rights abuse. Family members who have a card that proves valid residency are therefore prevented automatically and absolutely from gaining entry without a visa into a member state’s territory.
They went further to state that the fact that a large quantity of cases of fraud and rights abuse were being faced by a member state was no justification of the adoption of a policy whose foundation was based on considering general prevention in the exclusion of a specific review of the attitude of the individual concerned.
With regards to the present case, such measures would mean that the fact of an individual belonging to a given group of people would encourage member states to keep apart the very importance of the individual and primary right of citizens of the EU to freely reside and move within member states’ territories.
Whether Britain should continue to be in Europe, freedom of movement in the EU, and immigration are all increasingly annoying issues as the general elections of next year approaches. The ruling by Luxembourg would probably create problems for David Cameron because it could lead to doors being opened for large numbers of nationals who are non-EU. It would probably also annoy Eurosceptic backbenchers of the Tory and strengthen the anti-immigration and anti-EU campaign of the Ukip.
The MEP of Ukip Steven Woolfe stated that even though the permits system is widely open to fraud and abuse, Britain will be tasked to offer recognition to residency permits given by any member state of the EU.
In his opinion, the so-called right to freedom of movement has been extended to several millions of individuals from all over the world who do not possess citizenship of any EU country. This was just additional evidence that as long as it was a member of the European Union, Britain can never retrieve control of its borders.
A Conservative MEP Timothy Kirkhope stated that the country required a system of issuing visas that was controlled and coordinated by the UK and not by the European Union. He also agreed that a system of immigration which was fair, and did not disadvantage the identity and rights of citizens of Britain to reside with their loved ones and family should exist in the UK.
He concluded by voicing the disappointment of the government because they believed that the visa system of the UK is both lawful and just. Britain was always going to remain best positioned in dealing and deciding on its own needs for immigration, and not a Luxembourg judge.