British nationals after an offence: which date sets the entry ban review standard

Article 20 of the Withdrawal Agreement links the first review to conduct. Conduct by protected Union citizens, British nationals and certain family members is examined under Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC if it took place before the end of the transition period. Conduct after that point may constitute a ground for restricting residence or entry under national law under Article 20(2).

The cut-off is therefore 31 December 2020, the last day of the transition period. The authority must make the temporal classification of the relevant conduct intelligible. A chronology matters especially where there were several acts or a continuing course of conduct.

A criminal conviction may follow the alleged conduct long after it occurred. Immigration proceedings may begin or end later still. Those later dates do not automatically change the temporal connection required by Article 20.

The review should identify each act, its beginning and end, and the facts on which the immigration decision actually relies. Calling something a criminal offence does not by itself show whether all relevant conduct fell before or after the cut-off date.

Mixed cases require older and later events to be described separately. This prevents a later proceeding from being assigned wholesale to a stricter or otherwise unsuitable review framework.

The cut-off date is not enough on its own. Article 10 of the Withdrawal Agreement defines the personal scope. It includes, among others, British nationals who exercised a right of residence in a member state in accordance with EU law before the end of the transition period and continued to reside there afterwards. Family members may also be protected under the conditions of the agreement.

The review should therefore include residence history, the start and continuation of residence and the residence document. A British passport alone does not prove that the special protection applies to the particular measure. Conversely, the status cannot be disregarded solely because a criminal decision was issued later.

This is separate from the question whether permanent residence has already been acquired. The article on residence bans against EEA citizens explains the general importance of privileged status. Family members require the separate review of derived status.

Article 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement refers, for decisions restricting the residence rights of protected persons, to the safeguards in Article 15 and Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC. The temporal classification therefore does not decide the outcome on its own. It first identifies the framework and safeguards that must be applied.

The authority must identify the relevant facts and the person’s status in a comprehensible way. This includes the conduct in question, its date and the specific immigration measure. A general reference to a conviction does not replace that classification.

An appeal should address the cut-off date, protected status and reasoning separately. The different question whether current circumstances establish a risk must also be kept distinct. This separation prevents the temporal rule from being confused with the later substantive assessment.

The temporal review needs a reliable chronology. Relevant documents include the indictment or charge, the criminal judgment with its established periods, decisions ending an investigation and the immigration decision. In continuing or repeated conduct cases, list the periods separately.

Also collect residence documents, registration evidence, proof of exercising residence rights and earlier correspondence with the authorities. These documents show whether and since when the person relied on the protected position in Austria.

Check the date, file number, issuing body and factual description in each document. If the criminal judgment and the immigration decision describe different periods, that discrepancy should be raised expressly in the legal challenge.