Court of Appeal rejects Ankara Agreement settlement rights appeal
The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by Turkish business owners challenging a reduction in their settlement rights. The case is R (Alliance of Turkish Business People Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 553.
Self-employed Turkish business people used to be entitled to indefinite leave to remain after four years, for free, and without passing an English language test. These useful rights came from the Ankara Agreement, a treaty with Turkey that the UK became a party to in 1973.
For years, the settled understanding was that the UK government had to offer indefinite leave to this group on the same terms that were on offer in 1973.
But the legal landscape shifted. A couple of years ago, the Home Office realised that it was no longer bound by this “standstill clause” and could force Turkish businesspeople into the normal settlement route. A group of existing residents challenged the retrospective application of the new policy to their cases, arguing that they had a legitimate expectation that the rules of the game would not change at half time.
In the High Court last year, Mr Justice Dingemans found that there was indeed a legitimate expectation of getting indefinite leave under the old rules. But since it could be justified, there was no public law problem.
The Court of Appeal went one better, finding that there was no legitimate expectation to begin with. Government guidance did describe the standstill clause and its effects, but was “only giving advice as to the state of affairs as it existed at the time”. It did not, the court found, make a promise to keep the rules that way in future.
As such, “there was no statement or representation capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation”.
Frustratingly for the business owners, Lord Justice Flaux went to say that he would have been prepared to allow their appeal if it hadn’t been for the lack of a qualifying representation triggering legitimate expectation:
if I had considered that the judge was correct in his conclusion as to whether there was legitimate expectation, I would have concluded that he had erred in his evaluation that it was justifiable to frustrate that legitimate expectation by making the immediate changes in policy.
A Supreme Court appeal must be a possibility.
Posted on 03.05.2020.
We provide services
Other useful articles
- On 24 July official visa fees rose by 20 percent for family visas and those on discretionary or human rights grounds
- Electronic visas (eVisas): who is affected and what steps to take now
- UK government launches new Border Security Command to fight illegal immigration
- Important changes regarding ILR under the 10-year long residence in the country - violation of the basic principle of law
- The approach to taxation of the Labour government: manifesto promises and key themes
- Labour Party’s immigration law policy as per their Party Manifesto 2024
Get specialist advice
Please contact with one of our immigration lawyers by phone +44 (0) 207 907 1460 (London), +971 509 265 140 (Dubai) or complete our enquiry
Contact us