Inquiries and legal proceedings

If we believe there may have been a failure or imminent failure in the way in which a UK authority has implemented the citizens’ rights agreements, we have specific powers to hold public bodies to account.

The two main ways we can take action are:

Legal action (review and interventions)
Inquiries

Complaints received from the public, as well as our own intelligence monitoring and assurance reviews, help us to determine where issues may be occurring and to decide which action, if any, to take.

An inquiry may lead us to initiate legal proceedings, but any issues identified can be resolved directly with the public authority.

The IMA's Powers

Litigation is the process of taking legal action. Our litigation activities can involve bringing our own judicial review claim (in Scotland an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session) before a judge.

We can bring judicial review proceedings against a public body if we consider this is needed to promote the implementation or application of the citizens’ rights agreements.

This is a type of court proceeding in which a judge will review the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

Litigation is the process of taking legal action. Our litigation activities can involve intervening in a case that has already been brought before a court by a third party. We can intervene in any legal proceedings, including those of review.

We can intervene in existing legal proceedings if we consider this is needed to promote the implementation or application of the citizens’ rights agreements.

An inquiry is a review by the IMA which seeks to determine whether the UK has failed to comply with the citizens’ rights agreements or has acted / is proposing to act in a way which prevents a citizen exercising their rights. It enables the IMA to identify any recommendations it considers appropriate to promote the implementation or application of the agreements.

We may conduct an inquiry for one of three reasons:

as a result of a complaint or series of complaints
as a result of our own monitoring and intelligence gathering
following a request from a Secretary of State (SoS), Scottish Minister, Welsh Minister or Executive Office in Northern Ireland

The IMA can only carry out an inquiry in the first two situations above if it has reasonable grounds to believe that the inquiry may conclude that a failure to comply with the citizens’ rights agreements has occurred or that a public body has acted or is proposing to act in a way that prevents a person from exercising their rights under the Agreements.

During the Inquiry we will look for general or systemic failings to ensure the fair treatment of EU, EEA and EFTA citizens and their family members.

We will not carry out an inquiry unless we have reasonable grounds to conclude that a failure has or is about to occur.

IMA legal proceedings

In December 2021 the IMA brought a judicial review claim which was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on the 1 and 2 of November 2022. The judicial review was against the UK Home Office in which the IMA argued that it was unlawful for citizens to lose their rights if they failed to either apply for settled status, or in some circumstances re-apply for pre-settled status before the expiry of their pre-settled status. The European Commission and the3million intervened within our proceedings.

On 21 December Mr Justice Lane ruled in the IMA’s favour. The Home Office initially sought to appeal but have since decided not to proceed with this appeal.

Following the judgment the IMA has engaged the Home Office regarding its plans to implement the judgment. The most recent update can be found here.

Permission Order

Statement of Facts and Grounds

Skeleton Argument

Judgment

IMA court interventions 2025

The IMA has made an application to intervene in two judicial review proceedings before the High Court. The cases raise issues concerning the application and interpretation of Article 17(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, specifically how that provision applies to a non-EU national who was not residing in the UK on 31 December 2020 but was dependent as a family member of an EU citizen before that date and has since been granted PSS under the EUSS.

The court is actively considering whether it is appropriate to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the issues relating to the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement. The IMA has made its application to intervene and submissions to seek clarity and to assist the court in its decision.

Skeleton Argument
The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) invited the IMA to intervene in this appeal on the basis that it raises issues concerning citizens’ rights. Specifically, the appeal raises questions about the scope of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement and the rights of individuals who have a pending valid EUSS application evidenced by a Certificate of Application. The AIRE Centre represent the Appellant. The3million have also been granted permission to intervene.

A hearing date has not been set by the Upper Tribunal.

Skeleton Argument
In November 2024, the IMA was granted permission to continue to intervene in the Court of Appeal case of Fertre v Vale of the White Horse District Council. The3Million, Shelter, Secretary of State for Housing Communities, and Local Government and the AIRE Centre are also interveners in the case. By continuing to intervene in this case the IMA hope to assist the Court of Appeal as an impartial and independent party as to the proper interpretation of the rights under Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

This appeal concerns access to homelessness support. The important issue the Court of Appeal will consider is whether pre-settled status, of itself, is sufficient for entitlement to the Withdrawal Agreement’s Article 23 right to be treated equally with UK nationals. And if this cohort is entitled to rely on Article 23, whether discrimination in terms of access to homelessness support is justified.

This is an appeal of the High Court judgment handed down in July 2024. The High Court held that in order to benefit from the Withdrawal Agreement’s Article 23 right, an individual needed to be meeting the conditions for that right. Pre-settled status, of itself, was not sufficient. As such, the Local Authority’s refusal of homelessness assistance did not breach Article 23.

This case is the latest to consider this question. It is clear that clarity is needed on the correct interpretation so that citizens and public authorities are clearer on the circumstances in which certain support, such as homelessness support, is available.

As with many of the cases that the IMA have intervened in, this case raises questions regarding who has rights under the Withdrawal Agreement, and where they do, what conditions apply for citizens to benefit from those rights. Other interveners, the3million, Shelter and AIRE Centre consider that all that are granted PSS can benefit from the right to equal treatment without meeting any conditions. The UK Government on the other hand consider only those with PSS who (1) who were living in the UK as at 31 December 2020 as a worker, self-employed, self sufficient or student, and (2) met the same conditions at the time of application for support, can access the right to equal treatment, and therefore homelessness support. The IMA considers that all those granted PSS before 31 December 2020 can be eligible for equal treatment under Article 23, but would need to meet the relevant conditions at the time of their application for support.

Our skeleton argument in the case can be accessed here.

IMA court interventions 2024

The IMA was granted permission to intervene in the Upper Tribunal appeal of GA v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which challenged a decision to refuse an application for Universal Credit. The appeal raised important questions regarding the rights provided under the Withdrawal Agreement, specifically whether a grant of Pre Settled Status alone is sufficient to meet the eligibility requirements for Universal Credit, without meeting further conditions of the Agreements.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions conceded this appeal on the basis that the decision to refuse the Appellant Universal Credit resulted in a breach of her rights under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The IMA was not required to provide any submissions in this appeal due to the Secretary of State’s concession which did not concern the adequate and effective implementation of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement and EEA EFTA Separation Agreement.

The final decision was handed down on 26 November 2024.

Judgment
The IMA intervened within a section 204 homelessness appeal in the High Court. The main issue raised is whether pre-settled status, of itself, is sufficient for entitlement to the Withdrawal Agreement’s Article 23 right to be treated equally with UK nationals. This case follows previous IMA interventions in similar matters. This case was heard on 11 and 12 June 2024, with judgment handed down on 8 July 2024.

The High Court held that in order to benefit from the Withdrawal Agreement’s Article 23 right, an individual needed to be meeting the conditions for that right. Pre-settled status, of itself, was not sufficient. As such, the Local Authority’s refusal of homelessness assistance did not breach Article 23.

Skeleton Argument
The IMA has been granted permission to intervene in the Court of Appeal case of Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department. This case concerns the right to work under Article 22 of the Withdrawal Agreement, and its possible tension with the requirement to show dependency at the end of the transition period under Article 17(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement. The Appellant is also seeking a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The IMA has intervened to seek clarity from the court on the Withdrawal Agreement and to assist the court in its decision.

The case is due to be heard on 3 July 2024. The Court of Appeal handed down their judgment on 10 December 2024. It can be read here. The appellant was successful. The Home Office has requested permission to appeal.

Skeleton Argument

IMA court interventions 2023

The IMA has intervened in County Court litigation for the hearing of an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act. This case concerns the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for a family member of an EU citizen residing in the UK on the basis of pre-settled status who has been refused homelessness assistance from a local authority. The IMA has intervened to seek clarity from the courts on the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement and the boundaries of Charter protection, and to assist the court in its decision.

This case was heard on the 8^th and 9^th of February 2024.

The judgment was handed down on 22 May 2024.

Skeleton Argument

IMA Supplementary Note Redacted

Judgment

Redacted IMA Supplementary Note Article 17
The IMA intervened within the Court of Appeal proceedings in the AT litigation following the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (“SSWP”) appealing the Upper Tribunal’s judgment. This case concerns (amongst other points) the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union under the framework of the Withdrawal Agreement and EEA EFTA Separation Agreements. The Upper Tribunal held in favour of AT that she was entitled to rely upon the Charter under the post-end of transition period legal framework, and therefore that a refusal of Universal Credit in such circumstances was unlawful. The SSWP was given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The IMA was also granted permission to intervene in the case, with the hearing taking place on 8 – 10 March 2023. The Court of Appeal’s judgment was handed down in November and can be read here. The SSWP’s appeal was dismissed. The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and this was refused on 7 February 2024, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment is now final.

Skeleton Argument
The case raises important issues about how the Withdrawal Agreement should be interpreted, in particular whether an application for an EEA family permit submitted before 11pm on 31 December 2020, can be treated as an application falling within Article 10(3) of the Agreement, attracting its protections.

The Court of Appeal handed down their judgment on 14 March, 2024. It can be found on their website. The applicant lost his appeal.

Skeleton Argument

Judgment
This case concerns delays in applications to the EU Settlement Scheme as a result of pending prosecutions. It raises a number of important issues, including whether there is any obligation to decide applications under Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement and Article 17 of the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement within a reasonable time together with how an assessment as to what is reasonable is made.

The case was heard on 18 May 2023 and the judgment was handed down on 26 June 2024. The Appellant was successful.

Skeleton Argument
The case raises important issues about how the Withdrawal Agreement should be interpreted, in particular whether an application for leave to remain as a durable partner under the EU Settlement Scheme, submitted before 11pm on 31 December 2020, can be treated as an application falling within Article 10(3) of the Agreement, attracting its protections.

The hearing took place before the Court of Appeal on 4 and 5 July and the IMA made written and oral submissions. You can read the IMA’s skeleton argument via the website.

The Court of Appeal handed down their judgment on 31 July. It can be found on their website. The applicant lost his appeal.

Skeleton Argument

IMA court interventions 2022

In November 2021 the IMA was granted permission to intervene in the Upper Tribunal case of Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v AT. The AIRE Centre also intervened within this important case. This case raised (amongst other points) issues as to the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”) under the framework of the Withdrawal Agreement and EEA EFTA Separation Agreement following the end of the transition period. AT is an EU national with pre-settled status. She does not however hold a qualifying EU law right to reside in terms of eligibility for Universal Credit under the domestic welfare benefits legislation. The Upper Tribunal held that AT was entitled to rely upon the Charter under the post-end of transition period legal framework. This judgment is under appeal, with the IMA also intervening within the appeal.

Skeleton Argument

Judgment
The IMA was granted permission to intervene in a Court of Appeal case on 21 September 2022. The case raised issues including derivative residence rights and the application and extent of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union under the framework of the Withdrawal Agreement and EEA EFTA Separation Agreements. The IMA submitted a skeleton argument for its intervention in the case. This case settled between the Appellant and Respondent in February 2023.

Skeleton Argument
On 21 September 2022, the IMA was granted permission to intervene in a second Court of Appeal case concerning the application and extent of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union under the framework of the Withdrawal Agreement and EEA EFTA Separation Agreements. However, the case was settled in October 2022 between the Appellant and Respondent before the IMA’s skeleton argument was submitted.

IMA court interventions 2021

In May 2021 we intervened in the case of R (Fratila & Tanase) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (with the AIRE Centre also intervening) which related to the rights of certain groups of citizens with pre-settled status to social security payments. Whilst the case was concerned with the law as it applied before the UK left the EU, we intervened because the case was concerned with the interpretation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which is referred to in the Citizens’ Rights Agreements. There was therefore potential for the case to have relevance to the interpretation of the Agreements.

Skeleton Argument

Want to make us aware of something?

Whilst we are not able to intervene in every case, we are always keen to hear from practitioners, organisations and individuals who are involved in legal proceedings which concern citizens’ rights. We have also secured a new Practice Direction which applies to cases within the civil courts of England & Wales, making it a requirement for those litigating a citizens’ rights claim to tell us about their case. For those required to tell us about their case as a result of this Practice Direction, or for those who want to let us know about their litigation (for example within the tribunals), please let us know by emailing litigation@ima-citizensrights.org.uk.

We've published a report on our first inquiry

The IMA's first inquiry looks at Certificate of Application delays and how this might affect the rights of EU and EEA EFTA citizens applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.

The IMA has published its report on its first inquiry into Certificate of Application delays

Judicial Review against the Home Office