[@Muttonhawk] You brought this on yourself. I shall henceforth remember cases based on stuff from the guild.

There is CS & Rendón Marín (2016). CS obviously stands for Character Sheet. As for Rendón Marín. I know for certain that they have two foreign letters in them - so I start from there and hope for the best. 

[abbr=In the case concerning the Character Sheet of Brendón Marín, parents of EU minor children who are themselves not EU citizens cannot be automatically deported. They must pose a present and sufficiently serious danger to CD2004/38 Article 27(1)'s justifications for expulsion; namely, being a danger to public policy or public security (public health is inapplicable in this case). One must keep in mind that the requirements for residence set out in Art. 7(1) must still be met.]Writes in exam[/abbr]

The case of Baumbast & R (2002) (i.e BBeaster) concerned a German father who left the UK to work elsewhere, leaving his wife and children in the UK. It was combined with the case of R who were the children of a divorced American woman. In both cases, the children (and through them, their non-Eu mothers) had a right to remain in the UK. The right of the mothers to remain, strangely, was considered 'independent' and would become a permanent personal right to remain once 5 years had passed. Much of this is now contained in the Directive, but the cases are good to know too.

The case of Punakova (2012) (aka Puny Malchivo) concerned a Czech full-time mother who was formerly self-employed, living in the UK. The question arose of whether she, having been self-employed rather than conventionally employed, could be considered a 'worker' and thus have a right to remain in the UK - along with her child. The court never got to decide, as it was ascertained that the father had in fact been employed in the UK, and so the child had a right to remain in the UK. The mother had a derived right through him. The status of self-employed EU workers, thanks to the unsatisfactory escapism of the judges in Puny Malchivo's case, remains uncertain.

I will keep you posted on the [abbr=namely, Lawrie-Blum (1986); Steymann (1986); (Mein) Kempf (1986) because workers don't need to earn enough to live on mwahahaha; Levin (1982); Hoelkstra (1964); Collins v SoS for Work & Pension (2004); Antonissen (1991); R v Bouchereau (1977) regarding a French criminal being deported and the grounds on which he could be deported; Van Duyn (1974) regarding an unwelcome Scientologist; Rottman (2010) regarding a NotGermanAnyMoreHA! fraudster; G1 v SoS for the Home Department (2012) about the terrorist who got away then had his British citizenship revoked and wasn't happy about that at all]others.[/abbr]

Woah, when wasting your time on RPGuild because you don't want to revise turned into the most productive revision session in ages.