Special thanks to Britcits for supplementing my list with their helpful references.
By Section:- C-292/89 The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen - C-292/89 - The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen allows the six month period permitted for jobseekers to look for work in the host Member State to be split across multiple occasions, but not exceeded.
- C-68/89 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands - C-68/89 - Commission v Netherlands prevents immigration officials from asking questions such as how long you intend to stay or whether you have the finacial means to enter the country.
- C-370/90 The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for Home Department - C-370/90 - The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh is the basis on which British Citizens can take advantage of the EU rights of residence for their non-EU family members when they have lived in another member state before returning to the UK.
- C-60/00 Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department - C-60/00 - Carpenter extends the right to non-EU family members who are married to a British Citizen who are providing cross-border services to another EU member state, where refusing residence would restrict the provision of services.
- C-459/99 Mouvement contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie ASBL (MRAX) v Belgian State - C-459/99 - MRAX In absense of a valid ID or passport a family member has a right of entry if they can prove their identity and ties with the EU citizen (is this still valid after the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC? Which states at Article 5(1) - '... shall grant family members who are not nationals of a Member State leave to enter their territory with a valid passport'). Also an applicant cannot be refused a residence card just because they entered the territory unlawfully.
- C-109/01 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hacene Akrich - C-109/01 - Akrich the judgement basically deals with the issue, where a couple delibrately moves to another member state to come back and take advantage of the “Surinder Singh” route, which is generally allowed if the marriage is genuine and treaty rights were correctly exercised in the other member state.
- C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department - C-200/02 - Zhu and Chen by providing rights of entry and residence for the primary carer of an EEA national, who is (a) under the age of 18 and (b) residing in the United Kingdom as a self sufficient person, where the denial of such a right would prevent the EEA national child from exercising his or her own right of residence.
- C-291/05 Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v R. N. G. Eind - C-291/05 - Eind grants rights of residence to third country national family member where the union citizen has exercised their rights in another member state, then returned to their home state where the worker does not carry on any effective and genuine activities.
- C-127/08 Blaise Baheten Metock and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform - C-127/08 - Metock and Others removes the requirement that a non-EU family member had prior lawful residence to benefit from the regulations.
- C-310/08 Nimco Hassan Ibrahim v London Borough of Harrow and Secretary of State for the Home Department - C-310/08 - Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department See comments for C-310/08 Teixeira
- C-480/08 Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth and Secretary Of State For The Home Department - C-480/08 - Teixeira confer rights of entry and residence— (a) on the child of an EEA national where the child is in education in the United Kingdom and had entered the United Kingdom and begun to reside there at a time when their EEA national parent was residing as a worker; and (b) on the primary carer of that child of an EEA national where requiring the primary carer to leave the United Kingdom would prevent the child of an EEA national from continuing to be educated in the United Kingdom.
- C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) (‘Zambrano’) - C-34/09 - Ruiz Zambrano confers rights of entry and residence on the primary carer of a British citizen who is residing in the United Kingdom and where the denial of such a right of residence would prevent the British citizen from being able to reside in the United Kingdom or in an EEA State.
- C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department - C-434/09 - McCarthy limits the scope of Akrich where the British national is also a national of the member state which they travel to. In this case McCarthy was considered British in the UK and Irish in Ireland, and had therefore not made use of freemovement rights to take advantage of the rights of residence.
- C-83/11 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Muhammad Sazzadur Rahman and Others(‘Rahman’) - C-83/11 - Rahman and Others removes any requirement that a person must have resided in a country other than the UK with the EEA national of whom they claim to be an extended family member.
- C-456/12 O. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v B. - C-456/12 - O. and B. extends the right to non-EU family members who are married to a British Citizen who are returning to their home state after short periods of residence in another Member state. Related to the “Centre of Life” test.
- C-457/12 S. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G. - C-457/12 - S. and G. extends the right to non-EU family members who are married to a British Citizen that regularily travelling to another EU member state in the course of their employment where refusing residence would restrict the provision of services.
- C-202/13 The Queen, on the application of Sean Ambrose McCarthy and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department. - C-202/13 - McCarthy and Others led to amendments in the definition of “qualifying EEA State residence card” to encompass cards issued by any EEA State, as defined, not including Switzerland. Also clarifies that an EEA Family Permit is not required for someone holding an Article 10 Residence Card.
- C-133/15 – Chavez-Vilchez and Others - C-133/15 - H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others allows a person to be recognised as a “primary carer” if they are the sole carer or if they share equally the care with another person, regardless of whether that person is an “exempt person” within the meaning of regulation 16(7)(c).
- C-165/16 – Lounes - C-165/16 - Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department provides that a national of an EEA State who is also a British citizen, where British citizenship was acquired after the EEA citizenship and after Treaty rights had been exercised in the UK, may continue to be treated as an EEA national, subject to the requirements of new regulation 9A(2) to (4).
- C-442/16 – Gusa - C-442/16 - Florea Gusa v Minister for Social Protection and Others provides that EEA nationals who are no longer working in a self-employed capacity retain their status as a self-employed person.
- C-424/16 – Vomero (Joined with C-316/16) - C-316/16 B v Land Baden-Württemberg and C-424/16 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero provides that this protection only applies to a person who, as well as satisfying the qualifying period of residence, has a permanent right of residence in the UK.
- C-129/18 – SM (Enfant placé sous kafala algérienne) - C-129/18 - SM v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section making it clear that the category of extended family member can include relatives of an EEA national’s spouse or civil partner; and secondly by setting out the conditions under which a child placed in a system of non-adoptive legal guardianship can be an extended family member for the purpose of the 2016 Regulations.
- IA/20342/2012 Nicol Nsobam Gemuh vs The Secretary Of State For The Home Department - IA/20342/2012 - GEMUH unreported decision which relates to the status of durable partner.