The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 29 January 2026 in two appeals about whether national law alone, or also the Citizens' Rights Directive, governs the deportation of EU citizens with indefinite leave under Appendix EU.
Key facts
- Who: EU citizens with indefinite leave to remain under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules who were convicted of offences committed after Implementation Period Completion Day and face deportation
- From: 29 January 2026
- Source: Tomas Molnar v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2026] EWCA Civ 31
Background
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment on 29 January 2026 in [2026] EWCA Civ 31. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing gave the judgment; Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Falk completed the panel. The appeals were heard on 19 and 20 November 2025, with further written submissions on 19 January 2026.
The appellants, Ms Vargova and Mr Molnar, are citizens of EU member states. Both hold indefinite leave to remain under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. Both were convicted of offences committed after Implementation Period Completion Day, and both received sentences of more than 12 months' imprisonment.
The Secretary of State decided to deport each of them. They appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) under the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. In each case that tribunal allowed the appeal because the Secretary of State had not considered the proportionality of removal before making the decision.
The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which held that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law in finding that any proportionality test applied. The appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal with permission from Lewis LJ.
The question
The court framed the issue as which regime applies to the deportation of people in this position: solely the regime in national legislation, or something different? If EU law is still relevant, to what extent do the provisions of the Citizens' Rights Directive (Directive 2004/38) still bind the United Kingdom and so apply in such cases?
The appeals concern how the Withdrawal Agreement, the treaty under which the UK left the EU, is to be interpreted. The Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements and the AIRE Centre took part as interveners.
The statutory framework
The judgment sets out the national rules in detail. Under section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against a "foreign criminal", subject to the exceptions in section 33. One exception applies where deportation would breach a person's Convention rights. Another applies to a "relevant person", in essence someone within the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, whose offence included conduct before Implementation Period Completion Day.
The judgment also notes that there is no longer a specific statutory right of appeal against a decision to deport. A person has a right of appeal only if they have made a protection claim or a human rights claim and the Secretary of State has refused it.
What this means for people facing deportation
The judgment concerns EU citizens with indefinite leave to remain under Appendix EU who face deportation after a conviction for an offence committed after Implementation Period Completion Day. Whether a proportionality assessment is required depends on how the Withdrawal Agreement and the Citizens' Rights Directive apply, and the Court of Appeal's reasoning on that point is set out in the full judgment.
Anyone affected should check the judgment itself and get legal advice on their own circumstances.
Sources
- Tomas Molnar v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2026] EWCA Civ 31, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29 January 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/31