Search
The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in the joined cases of Vargova v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Molnar v Secretary of State for the Home Department. These cases raise an important issue concerning the interpretation of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement (Articles 20 and 21, in particular) and whether the EU proportionality principle applies to a decision to deport an EU national resident in the UK on grounds of criminal conduct committed after the transition period had expired.
The Secretary of State argued that she is not required to assess whether such deportations are compatible with the EU proportionality principle, and on appeal, a court or tribunal does not need to consider whether the decision to deport is disproportionate under EU law either. The issue has wide-ranging implications for EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom under the Withdrawal Agreement. It is potentially relevant to UK nationals enjoying corresponding accrued residence rights in EU Member States.
In January 2026, the Court of Appeal (Baker, Elisabeth Laing, Falk LJJ) agreed with the Secretary of State in its judgment [2026] EWCA Civ 31.
The Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (“IMA”), the statutory body responsible for monitoring the implementation of Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement, intervened in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and in both applications for permission to appeal in the Supreme Court. The IMA argued that Articles 20 and 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement, properly interpreted in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement, require decisions restricting protected residence rights to comply with the EU law principle of proportionality. It argued that the Court of Appeal adopted the wrong interpretative framework.
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, but permission has now been granted by the Supreme Court (Lord Reed, Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose). The appeals will provide the Supreme Court with the opportunity to determine the proper interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement and to clarify whether the EU principle of proportionality continues to govern decisions restricting the residence rights of beneficiaries of the Agreement, or make a reference to the CJEU.
Ian Rogers KC appeared for the IMA in the Court of Appeal and in the intervention in support of the applications for permission to appeal in the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is here and the link to the Supreme Court website is here.