IB v FA
C-289/20. The judgment of the European Court agrees with the Opinion of the Advocate General, which says at [56] that indent 5 is satisfied:-“if it is the place of habitual residence of the applicant, provided that it has been his or her place of habitual residence for at least a year before the application was made…”48.It follows that I approach indent 5 on the basis of my decision in Pierburg. The law is therefore as follows.
- JUDGMENT
- The relevant history
- Pierburg v Pierburg
- Z v Z
- The law I have to apply
- Rogers-Headicar v Headicar
- Marinos v Marinos
- V v V
- Pierburg
- IB v FA
- Burden and standard of proof
- Language barrier
- Lucas
- Marinos
- Discretionary stay
- de Dampierre v de Dampierre
- S v S
- C v C
- Ella v Ella
- Tan v Choy
- Otobo v Otobo
- The evidence that I heard
- My conclusions on habitual residence
- Stay