UK Government’s interpretation of Surinder Singh
The UK Government’s official interpretation of the effect of Surinder Singh is set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 at regulation 9 (as amended):
(1) If the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied, these Regulations apply to a person who is the family member of a British citizen as if the British citizen (“P”) were an EEA national.
(2) The conditions are that–
(a) P is residing in an EEA State as a worker or self-employed person or was so residing before returning to the United Kingdom;
(b) if the family member of P is P’s spouse or civil partner, the parties are living together in the EEA State or had entered into the marriage or civil partnership and were living together in the EEA State before the British citizen returned to the United Kingdom; and
(c) the centre of P’s life has transferred to the EEA State where P resided as a worker or self-employed person.
(3) Factors relevant to whether the centre of P’s life has transferred to another EEA State include–
(a) the period of residence in the EEA State as a worker or self-employed person;
(b) the location of P’s principal residence;
(c) the degree of integration of P in the EEA State.
(4) Where these Regulations apply to the family member of P, P is to be treated as holding a valid passport issued by an EEA State for the purpose of the application of regulation 13 to that family member.
Essentially, if the conditions in this paragraph are met then the British citizen will be treated by the UK Government as an EU citizen and can rely on the family reunion rules that apply to EU citizens.
However, it can be seen immediately that the ‘centre of life’ test has no place in the new case of O v The Netherlands. It is clear that the UK will have to amend the regulations, which are incompatible with EU law. That may take many months or even years, and in the meantime Home Office officials and immigration tribunal judges will have to apply O v The Netherlands directly.