You are here:

Key facts of the case:

Z appealed against a decision of the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) upholding the Secretary of State's refusal to admit him to the United Kingdom. Z, an EU citizen, had been refused admission to the UK pursuant to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 reg.19. Although his exclusion restricted his rights of free movement and residence, the SIAC held that it was justified on imperative grounds of public security. Its decision was based principally on closed material which had not been disclosed to Z or his representatives. Not even the gist of the case against Z had been disclosed. The Court of Appeal dismissed Z's domestic law grounds of appeal. However, there remained the question of whether he had been given sufficient disclosure of the case against him to comply with the requirements of EU law. Directive 2004/38 art.30(2) required that an individual in Z's position should be informed "precisely and in full" of the grounds on which a decision taken under art.27 had been based, unless that was contrary to the interests of national security. The Court of Appeal referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union the question of whether art.30(2) meant that an individual in Z's position had to be informed of the essence of the grounds for the exclusion decision, even if the domestic court considered that such disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security (ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 440).