Held, appeal dismissed and no question was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Court Communities. (1) A Zambrano carer’s right to remain in an European Union country was triggered specifically and solely by the risk of an European Union citizen child being required to leave the territory of the European Union, and not by the mere desirability of keeping the family together or on economic or other grounds. Once the Zambrano carer’s right of residence, and with it the right to work, were established the entitlement to and the amount of unemployment benefit was a matter of national law. European Union law did not require more for the children than practical support sufficient to avoid their being obliged to leave the European Union, and that also set the limits of what was involved in its implementation. The level of non-contributory financial support to be provided was left to the national government and was not regulated by European Union law. Decisions about the level of non-contributory benefits, absent any specific requirement or condition of European Union law, were not within the scope of the FEU Treaty. The policy makers who had framed the Amendment Regulations regarded Zambrano carers as third country nationals who should be put in the same position any other third country nationals, and third country nationals were not, in general, entitled to income-related benefits. Accordingly, the claimant could not rely on discrimination under the FEU Treaty to give her any entitlement to financial support beyond the limited support required by her rights as the primary carer of European Union citizen children.

(2) The claimant’s immigration status as a third country national could not in itself give her the right to a claim for discrimination under the Charter or under article 14 of the Convention. Discrimination on the grounds of immigration status was a fundamental and accepted part of European Union and national law. The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality had no application to third country nationals and only nationals of European Union member states were protected under the Charter. The claimant’s differential treatment arose from her status as a third country national. Her status as a Zambrano carer was a creation of European Union law and such differences of treatment as there were, as compared with other categories of resident, did no more than reflect the law by which the status was created. European Union law had long accepted that the allocation of limited public funds in the social security and welfare context was pre-eminently a matter for national authorities, subject only to the requirement that their decisions should not be manifestly without reasonable foundation. The United Kingdom Government’s reasons for not providing support to Zambrano carers were based on objectives which it was impossible to say fell outside the wide margin of discretion allowed to national governments. Accordingly, the claim alleging discrimination under the Charter and the Convention failed.

(3) Although in the present case the duty under section 17 of the 1989 Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of children arose from a duty imposed by European Union law on member states, the allocation of responsibility for those duties between local and national government was an issue of national rather than European Union law. Section 17 was designed to cover a wide range of circumstances in which a local authority might need to take action to protect the interests of children and the administration of that section could be said to be implementing European Union law by enabling the claimant’s children to remain living in the United Kingdom The section 17 services had flexibility and could be adjusted to the needs of the particular child or family and was a way of providing the claimant’s children with what they needed. The fact that there were other, and in some respects preferable, ways of doing that did not mean that the United Kingdom was in breach of its obligations under European Union law.