X, a Chinese husband of G, a German national, had moved to Sweden where G got residency permit as an EU citizen, and X got one as G’s spouse. G’s mother, P, was given a 90 day residency permit, and she then applied for residency on the grounds that she was totally dependent on X and G (under directive 73/148). ECJ said that the grant of residency is not dependant on the family member having previously resided lawfully in a MS, the court deciding NOT to follow Akrich. BUT this didn’t overrule Akrich because of the important difference that here, unlike in Akrich, the family member was not trying to evade immigration laws, and had not entered the country unlawfully. Also there was no problem in P asking to switch from one status (temporary resident) to another (permanent residence). Craig: ECJ was confining Akrich to its particular facts, rather than, like the AG did, recognising the clash between MRAX and Akrich.
ECJ: On dependency, the MS was entitled to look at the material support being provided to the relative in their country of origin, or the member state where the application was being made, in order to determine that the support was being provided and was needed to meet essential needs. There was no set format for providing such evidence, and it could be provided by any means that was appropriate to demonstrating the existence of dependency.