Affirmation of Article 1 EU Charter Rights for Pre-Settled Status Individuals Post-Brexit

Introduction

In the landmark case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AT ([2023] EWCA Civ 1307), the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) addressed critical issues concerning the rights of EU citizens holding Pre-Settled Status (PSS) in the United Kingdom following Brexit. The appellant, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP), appealed against a decision by the Upper Tribunal that upheld a refugee mother's appeal for Universal Credit (UC) benefits, which had been initially refused. The core of the dispute centered on whether Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), which safeguards human dignity, continued to apply post-Brexit, thereby obligating the UK authorities to ensure dignified living conditions for PSS holders despite their limited residency rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the SSWP's appeal, affirming the decision of the Upper Tribunal. The key findings were:

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 1 on human dignity, continues to apply to individuals holding PSS in the UK, ensuring their residency rights are exercised with dignity.
The SSWP failed to provide adequate support to AT, a Romanian PSS holder, leaving her and her child in potentially destitute conditions.
The Upper Tribunal correctly applied the judgment from the CJEU in CG v Department for Communities in Northern Ireland, establishing that individual assessments are mandatory to prevent violations of fundamental rights.
The Court rejected the SSWP's arguments that the Charter no longer applies post-Brexit and that the existing statutory framework suffices to meet fundamental rights obligations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced previous legal precedents and European Union (EU) jurisprudence to support its conclusions:

Case C-709/20 CG v Department for Communities in Northern Ireland: This CJEU case was pivotal in determining the applicability of the EU Charter post-Brexit, particularly concerning the right to dignified living conditions for PSS holders.
Case C-133/16 UBS Europe and Others: Highlighted the necessity for Member States to uphold fundamental rights as integral to the EU legal order.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union: Emphasized the "retained EU law" framework post-Brexit, which was foundational in transitioning EU rights into UK domestic law via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Reinforced the principle that states cannot evade their duties under human rights obligations by merely establishing a framework without effective implementation.

These precedents collectively underscored the UK’s obligations under both domestic and EU law to protect the fundamental rights of PSS holders.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning was multifaceted:

Applicability of the EU Charter: Despite Brexit, the Withdrawal Agreement incorporated the EU Charter into UK domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The court held that Article 1 of the Charter, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, remains applicable to PSS holders, ensuring their rights are protected.
Individualized Assessment: The judgment emphasized that authorities must conduct individualized assessments of each PSS holder’s circumstances to determine their entitlement to benefits, rather than relying solely on a broad "in principle" statutory framework.
Duty to Ensure Dignity: Under Article 1, the state has a positive obligation to ensure that individuals do not live in destitute conditions by proactively providing necessary support, rather than leaving it to individuals to seek redress after being denied benefits.
Rejection of "In Principle" Defenses: The court rejected the SSWP’s argument that the mere existence of a statutory framework suffices to meet fundamental rights obligations, clarifying that actual and current support must be accessible to prevent rights violations.

The court meticulously discredited the SSWP's arguments citing the non-applicability of the Charter after Brexit and the sufficiency of existing support mechanisms, reaffirming the necessity of direct and effective remedies for PSS holders.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications:

Strengthening of PSS Holders’ Rights: Ensures that PSS holders are not left without basic support, reinforcing their right to live with dignity in the UK.
Judicial Oversight Enhancement: Mandates that tribunals and courts must conduct thorough, case-specific assessments rather than relying on generalized assumptions about the adequacy of support systems.
Policy Adjustments: The SSWP and relevant governmental bodies may need to reassess and potentially augment their support frameworks to comply with the upheld obligations, ensuring effective implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement provisions.
Future Litigation: Establishes a legal precedent that can be referenced in future cases involving PSS holders, social benefits, and fundamental rights, potentially influencing a surge in similar appeals.

Overall, the judgment fortifies the legal protections for EU citizens residing in the UK under PSS, ensuring that their rights under the EU Charter receive due recognition despite the UK's departure from the EU.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To better understand the judgment, it's essential to clarify some complex legal concepts and terminologies:

Pre-Settled Status (PSS): A form of limited residency granted to EU citizens and their family members living in the UK before the Brexit transition period ended. It allows them to continue residing in the UK and apply for Settled Status after five years.
Article 1 of the EU Charter: Prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment and ensures the protection of human dignity.
Withdrawal Agreement: The treaty that set the terms of the UK's exit from the EU, encompassing transitional arrangements and rights protections for EU citizens living in the UK.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: UK legislation that repealed the European Communities Act 1972, effectively ending the supremacy of EU law in the UK, while retaining existing EU law as "retained EU law."
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Article 3 ECHR): Mirrored in Article 4 of the EU Charter, this provision prohibits torture and any form of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
CJEU: Court of Justice of the European Union, which interprets EU law and ensures its equal application across all EU member states.

Understanding these terms is crucial as they form the backbone of the legal arguments and the court’s reasoning in upholding the rights of PSS holders.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AT represents a significant affirmation of the protection of fundamental rights for EU citizens residing in the UK under Pre-Settled Status. By upholding the applicability of Article 1 of the EU Charter post-Brexit, the court reinforced the obligations of UK authorities to ensure that individuals are not left in destitute conditions merely due to the cessation of broad EU free movement rights.

This judgment underscores the necessity for individualized, effective support mechanisms within statutory frameworks, ensuring that the theoretical safeguards translate into real-world protections. It sets a precedent that challenges simplistic defenses based on "in principle" sufficiency, obliging authorities to engage actively with the specific needs and circumstances of PSS holders.

Moreover, the decision serves as a crucial reference point for future legal battles concerning the intersection of Brexit, EU law, and human rights within the UK, potentially shaping the landscape of social benefits and residency rights in the years to come.

In summary, this judgment not only upholds the dignity and rights of a vulnerable individual and her child but also enshrines a broader principle of personalized assessment and proactive state responsibility in the realm of social security and human rights.