>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:44:12 +0100, Don Aitken wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:42:38 +0200, Ulf Kutzner
> wrote:
>
>>Don Aitken schrieb:
>>
>>> Note that the primary criterion is not nationality, or immigration
>>> status, but *residence*. You need to have been ordinarliy resident in
>>> the UK for three years, and for the *whole* of that period your
>>> primary purpose in being so resident must *not* have been to receive
>>> full-time education.
>>
>>It might be questionable whether such rules are compatible with European
>>law as they are an obstacle for the freedom of students but Luxemburg
>>will not open a case for a British national complaning about UK rules.
>>
>There is a separate category for EU nationals and their children, no
>doubt for that reason; in their case the three years' residence may be
>anywhere in the EEA or Switzerland, with the same proviso. The fact
>that British citizens cannot take advantage of this is only one of
>many examples of British immigration law giving fewer rights to
>British citizens than to other EU citizanes.
But under the immigration laws, British citizens returning from
another EEA state may sponsor under EEA rules instead ("Surinder
Singh" case) although there is a downside of doing so (longer period
to settlement for the spouse).
Is the "Surinder Singh" ruling applicable to education funding as
well?
|