Help us defend EU citizens’ rights to live with dignity
Help us defend EU citizens’ rights to live with dignity
This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)
Latest: April 22, 2024
We're in court today!
Two weeks ago we were able to tell you that we had been granted permission to intervene in a County Court case called J v London Borough of Islington. That case is being heard today, and we wanted to…
Read morethe3million is ready to go to court to hold this government to account for restricting the rights of marginalised EU citizens and family members. We need your help to build a strategic litigation fund which will enable us to intervene quickly in a series of individual cases.
We're hoping to raise as much as possible for our fighting fund. Typically, each £10,000 will fund an important legal intervention, which could set legal precedent and help get rights recognised.
No matter where we were born, the colour of our skin, or how much we earn, we all deserve to live with dignity in the country we call home.
But this government is pushing many of our friends, family and neighbours into destitution by unfairly denying immigration status and help when it’s needed. People will be waking up today worrying about how to put food on the table and pay their bills.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can work together and leverage the power of the law to get this government to support communities to be resilient, ensuring everyone has access to the support we need.
How can the3million contribute to making sure EU citizens and family members are not abandoned by the government?
We believe there are legal arguments to be made to ensure EU citizens are treated fairly under the law, and are granted the correct immigration status, with access to all the rights they are entitled to, including welfare when needed.
We have identified a number of areas where EU citizens and their family members are not being treated fairly.
The Government does not consider all people with EU Settlement Scheme status to be Withdrawal Agreement beneficiaries. Our interventions want to ensure that everyone with EUSS status has access to the full package of rights that were promised.
The Government secretly considers some to be part of a ‘true cohort’ and others to be part of an ‘extra cohort’ - but doesn’t tell anyone which cohort they fall into when they grant them status.
This leads to many thousands of vulnerable people falling into destitution because they are denied Universal Credit, homelessness assistance and other benefits when they are deemed to be in the 'extra cohort'. It also creates a large and unnecessary pressure on the courts, as vulnerable people need to rely on judges to confirm they have a right to social assistance.
Our interventions will aim to erase the problematic distinction between ‘true’ and ‘extra’ cohort, and ensure that everyone with status under the EU Settlement Scheme has the right to equal treatment as guaranteed by the Withdrawal Agreement.
Ella** is a Danish citizen who came to the UK in 2011, but struggled to prove her residence so she was only granted pre-settled status instead of settled status. She had a job for many years but during the pandemic lost her job after she suffered for many months with the after effects of a severe Covid infection. It had an impact on her mental health, and she struggled to return to work.
As her savings depleted, she applied for Universal Credit but was refused, as her pre-settled status was not considered to make her eligible. Faced with potential eviction and homelessness, she turned to her local council, but was similarly refused homeless assistance.
Some groups of family members of EU citizens are at the moment unfairly refused status. Our interventions will aim to expand who is eligible to be granted immigration status through the EU Settlement Scheme.
Jorge** is a Colombian citizen who moved to the UK with his Spanish mum when he was 18. When the UK left the EU, Jorge had to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme. He was 22 at the time, had just graduated from university and had been excited to start his first job and move into a flatshare with friends.
However, the Home Office refused him status. They justify this by saying Jorge is no longer eligible because he’s now over 21 and he no longer financially depends on his mum. Had he still been 21, or had he moved back in with his mum and not accepted that job, the Home Office would have considered him eligible.
How our legal interventions could create systemic change
A third party intervention is a way for an organisation (that is not otherwise involved in a legal case as for example the claimant or defendant) to submit specialist information or expertise to the court, providing the court with a valuable additional perspective.
We are constantly coming across legal cases which would benefit from our arguments about scope and equal treatment under the Withdrawal Agreement. We have intervened in one such case already, concerning the family member of an EU citizen with pre-settled status who was denied homelessness assistance.
We hope our intervention was helpful to the court, and we are awaiting judgment. We have published a note on the legal arguments that we used, and hope to use again in other cases.
the3million has demonstrated itself to be a responsible litigant in previous cases, both as claimant and as intervener. In one judgment, the judge said the answer to a legal question was “most precisely articulated” in our submissions.
As these arguments are made before courts, precedent will be set and the law could be changed. We know that these cases will first be heard in the County Courts, Immigration Tribunals, and Social Security and Child Support Tribunals, and we want to be able to intervene in support of appellants in cases at these initial stages, as well as intervening in cases before the senior courts.
Where is the money going?
In order to make interventions in these cases, we often need to move very quickly. This is why we are aiming to raise funds to cover our legal costs, so we can be agile and intervene as soon as possible.
Interventions are generally cost effective, as we would generally only need to pay our own legal costs, rather than also being at risk of paying the other side's legal costs if the case doesn't go our way.
Our lawyers’ costs for an intervention will vary depending on the issues at hand and the nature of the intervention (i.e. whether we just make written submissions or appear in court to make oral arguments). Our legal team agreed to do our latest important intervention (kindly funded by the Strategic Legal Fund) for just under £10,000.
Their work on this case included extensive legal strategising and two full days in court, so other interventions are likely to cost less than this and will build on the strategic legal thinking we’ve already done.
We know that the solicitors and barristers that we work with are committed to and support our aims, and want to work as cost effectively as possible, so we can all maximise the impact the3million can have.
As a not-for-profit organisation, the3million does not have resources dedicated to cover these costs, so we are reaching out to people to support these interventions. All Crowdjustice funds raised will go towards this for as long as we can identify legal challenges in which our intervention will add value. We anticipate this will last for several years. Any funds remaining when this campaign is closed will be used to support the3million’s work advocating for EU citizens’ rights.
Thank you!
We will update our campaign page regularly, providing details of judgments as they unfold.
Thank you for reading about our campaign!
*the3million uses ‘EU citizens’ as shorthand for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who were resident in the UK before 31 December 2020, and their family members (of any nationality) with derived rights.
** These examples are for illustrative purposes only. They show the type of cases and personal circumstances our litigation will benefit from. Personal details are not attributed to already ongoing work.
Be a promoter
Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case
I'll share on Facebook
the3million
April 22, 2024
We're in court today!
Two weeks ago we were able to tell you that we had been granted permission to intervene in a County Court case called J v London Borough of Islington. That case is being heard today, and we wanted to explain a little more about how our intervention fits into this case.
What is the case about?
This case is being brought by J, a Slovakian citizen who was denied homelessness assistance by the London Borough of Islington. J has had pre-settled status since December 2019, and worked as a software engineer until the Covid pandemic. The extent to which he was able to work was limited by his health problems, with his situation becoming increasingly precarious. In the end he applied for homelessness assistance. However, Islington Council formed the view that it had to refuse him this help, because of the way they interpret the legislation for those with pre-settled status.
On what grounds is the refusal for homelessness assistance being challenged?
With legal challenges, it is possible to argue more than one ground. J’s lawyers are challenging this refusal on three grounds.
The first is that anyone with pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme has the right to equal treatment. This means that people with pre-settled status should be treated in the same way as British citizens, including when it comes to welfare benefits and homelessness assistance.
Current legislation says that someone with pre-settled status needs to satisfy an additional hurdle, the so-called ‘Right to Reside’ test. This is a hurdle that many vulnerable and marginalised people struggle to satisfy, or to evidence even if they do satisfy it. J’s lawyers will argue that it is wrong to subject pre-settled status holders to that additional test.
The second ground is related to the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has been the subject of a high profile court case AT, see here for more information on that case.
And the final ground is to argue that in any case, even if the first two grounds fail, J should be eligible because he is still self-employed and thereby satisfies that extra ‘Right to Reside’ test.
What is the3million’s intervention about?
Our intervention is entirely focused on the first of the three legal grounds described above.
The Withdrawal Agreement promises equal treatment rights - which means anyone with status under the EU Settlement Scheme should be considered for welfare and homelessness assistance on the same basis as a British citizen.
There are always eligibility criteria around welfare, but the point is that if a British citizen in the exact same situation would be eligible for help from the state, then so should a person with pre-settled status.
We think the Government legislation which imposes the extra ‘right to reside’ hurdle is unlawful.
Since pre-settled status is quite literally the proof that the Home Office has given someone the right to reside in the UK, it is unacceptable that when it comes to receiving help from the state, this status is considered not to be a right to reside in itself. It’s nonsensical.
Our intervention will be based on the arguments we ran in a previous intervention (see our legal note).
What type of intervention - written or oral?
When intervening in a case, it is possible to do so in one of two ways.
Our lawyers can request permission to send written submissions to the Court, in which we set out all our arguments.
Alternatively, it is possible to ask for permission to make oral submissions. This involves our barrister sending written arguments to the Court in advance of the hearing, and on the day of the hearing also being allocated time to fully set out the reasoning behind those arguments, and to answer any questions from the judge/s.
The decision on whether to make written or oral submissions depends on various factors, one of which is how much time there is available in the hearing. As a responsible intervener, we generally do not want to disrupt the timetable that was set before we become involved in the case.
For this case today, we have made written submissions. This means our barrister won’t be speaking at the court hearing. However, a representative from the3million will be attending the hearing, as it is very important not only to hear all the arguments from the appellant, the respondent and any other interveners, but also to hear the questions that the judge has for the various legal teams. The judge/s will have already read the legal arguments set out in our written intervention and will be required to take note of them when reaching a decision on the case.
When will we know the outcome?
In general, the judge does not hand down judgment on the day of the hearing. It can take some weeks, or sometimes longer, to receive the court’s decision.
We will of course continue to keep you updated, and in the meantime we hope you will continue to support us by donating and sharing our crowdfunder!
the3million
April 11, 2024
Granted permission in one case, applied for permission in another
Since the launch of our crowdfunder three weeks ago, we have been granted permission to intervene in one legal case, and applied for permission to intervene in another.
Permission granted to intervene in County Court case: J v London Borough of Islington
Last week, we were granted permission by the court to intervene in a case brought by J, a Slovakian citizen who was denied homelessness assistance.
J was granted pre-settled status in December 2019. Although he worked for a time as a software developer and web designer, he had health problems and struggled during the Covid years. He applied for homelessness assistance, but Islington Council formed the view that it had to turn him down. He has been sofa-surfing with kind friends ever since.
Islington Council thinks it has to apply the ‘Right to Reside’ test, an additional hurdle put in front of people with pre-settled status which many vulnerable and marginalised people struggle to satisfy.
The Withdrawal Agreement promises equal treatment rights - which means anyone with status under the EU Settlement Scheme should be considered for welfare and homelessness assistance on the same basis as a British citizen. We therefore think the Government legislation which imposes this extra ‘right to reside’ hurdle is unlawful.
Since pre-settled status is quite literally the proof that the Home Office has given someone the right to reside in the UK, it is unacceptable that when it comes to receiving help from the state, this status is considered not to be a right to reside. It’s nonsensical.
We are delighted that we have been granted permission to intervene. Our intervention will be based on the arguments we ran in a previous intervention (see our legal note).
Applied for permission to intervene in High Court case: EU citizen vs a Local Authority
Earlier this week, we applied for permission to intervene in another similar case, where an EU citizen with pre-settled status was denied homelessness assistance because the Local Authority thinks it must apply the ‘Right to Reside’ test which does not accept pre-settled status as a ‘right to reside’.
This case has been transferred from the County Court to the High Court, in recognition of the importance of the questions it throws up on rights under the Withdrawal Agreement.
Please support us by donating and sharing this fundraiser far and wide
Your donations will help us be agile and to intervene quickly in cases so that we can try to influence the legal precedent being set, and to put an end to the restrictions of rights of marginalised EU citizens and their family members.
Recent contributions