EU Commission takes the UK to court

rogerlongships · Post by **rogerlongships** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:11 pm

Well, after a lot of aggrivation just getting tickets, and being held onboard ship for 6 hours waiting to be landed by UKBA, my Russian wife was admitted to the UK on a code 3, with just our passports, marriage certificate and Swedish resident permits. Apparantly the UKBA officer had never landed anyone this way before, and made a big fuss about our entry being "discretionary", and that we should have,and next time, get an EEA permit, none of which is strictly needed as he allowed my wife entry anyway. Clearly the rules,as he said himself are open to interpretation by individual officers, as 3 other officers has told our travel operator we would not be landed without a visa. I have an ongoing issue with the UKBA in regards to my wifes entry stamp in her passport being a whole month before we arrived,and getting that information corrected, no easy task.
Much less hassle to get an EEA family permit, but i take a certain pride to being called as "stubborn as a Norwegian", and at least set a precedence should we travel again with the same company.

kyky · Post by **kyky** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:11 pm

Surprisingly to me, Ryanair admitted that they did a mistake when refusing to board my wife on a flight from Germany to London. I am non-UK EU-citizen and my wife is non-EU citizen holding a non-UK EU residence card. They issued a 250 euro compensation according to regulation 261/2004. I would suggest to everyone who has been refused boarding by Ryanair in this situation to claim this compensation. I don't think they have a good reason to grant it on one case and refuse it in another.

Further more, Ryanair said they have instructed their stuff accordingly. If true, this would mean that Ryanair is now officially boarding passengers without a family permit visa.

Post by **Directive/2004/38/EC** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:08 am

kyky wrote:Surprisingly to me, Ryanair admitted that they did a mistake when refusing to board my wife on a flight from Germany to London. I am non-UK EU-citizen and my wife is non-EU citizen holding a non-UK EU residence card. They issued a 250 euro compensation according to regulation 261/2004. I would suggest to everyone who has been refused boarding by Ryanair in this situation to claim this compensation. I don't think they have a good reason to grant it on one case and refuse it in another.

Further more, Ryanair said they have instructed their stuff accordingly. If true, this would mean that Ryanair is now officially boarding passengers without a family permit visa.

Very very interesting. Can you please provide as much more detail as possible.

Can you possibly contact Ryanair and ask what is the date and name of this particular instruction to their staff? It would be very useful to have some reference to this guidance.

docteurbenway · Post by **docteurbenway** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:33 pm

Some very troubling news out of the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rists.html

"The Prime Minister suggested only working immigrants should be allowed into the country, even if it means undermining the EU's key principle of "free movement"."

Post by **Directive/2004/38/EC** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:25 pm

docteurbenway wrote:Some very troubling news out of the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rists.html

"The Prime Minister suggested only working immigrants should be allowed into the country, even if it means undermining the EU's key principle of "free movement"."

I find it silly posturing. Don't worry about it.

They already have the ability of stopping benefit tourism. And there is not much of it. So where is the beef?

aledeniz · Post by **aledeniz** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:15 pm

docteurbenway wrote:Some very troubling news out of the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rists.html

I think the bone of contention is:

"Should we look at arguments about, should it be harder for people to come and live in Britain and claim benefits? Yes, frankly we should"

and I must say that I don't really totally disagree with him, as long as he is going to make harder in the same way to claim benefits also for people who are already living in Britain, and I don't mean only the non British ones.
The point I would like to make is that nowadays living off the benefit system is still way too easy, we should have in place more strategies to get more people, British or otherwise, in a job. I am thinking in example at compulsory programs like "Work for dole", or "Learn to drive for dole" or really at "Learn anything useful to get a job for dole", and also at raising the no tax and no contribution area to make low income work a more palatable alternative for people in benefit, and so on, in a multi pronged approach.
It would be useful also to invest to promote, I'd say in some case subsidize, the academic path for certain medium to high income professions. Say the medical profession: Italy has double the number of physicians per unit of population, and at the same time the Italian universal health system is able to get better results than the NHS even if Italy spend half of what the UK spend in health care. It is a no brainer that those two measures must be quite correlated. Create more university places to train doctors, and help more people from low income families to follow that career path, everyone will benefit (well, minus the current crop of medical professionals, who would see their market power and income decrease, but hardly to a level where they would any advantage to jump on the benefit wagon) and the taxpayers will get a better service in return for their hard toiled money.

pilayo · Post by **pilayo** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:17 pm

Mr Cameron maybe don't remember the amount of UK citizens that go to other countries for a surgery beause their "great" NHS
Which of those extraordinary beneficts do I have here in UK for the amount of taxes that I'm paying????? Sincerely I haven't found anything special yet....apart from a well paid job...and also from my part a well paid taxes..
I think that the UE should pay them the same ....they will decide if a uk citizen enters or not in a EU country...

pilayo · Post by **pilayo** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:19 pm

Better edit...

keffers · Post by **keffers** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:31 pm

Do these people who go to other European countries pay for it or is it 'on the house'?

Similarly, it would seem the majority of British citizens who go to live abroad (EU) almost always take their own money with them to buy property and have pensions/savings to support their living costs - at leat for several years.

The gripe with the British taxpayer is that 90% of immigrants to the UK do not bring money - only their labour. Not a bad thing when their was an abundance of jobs and no benefit entitlement for ten years. But that is not the case.

Great for the money making institutions - but for the long term economy and public services?

Post by **Directive/2004/38/EC** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:11 pm

keffers wrote:Similarly, it would seem the majority of British citizens who go to live abroad (EU) almost always take their own money with them to buy property and have pensions/savings to support their living costs - at leat for several years.

The gripe with the British taxpayer is that 90% of immigrants to the UK do not bring money - only their labour. Not a bad thing when their was an abundance of jobs and no benefit entitlement for ten years. But that is not the case.

Are there any stats that back up either of the claims in these two paragraphs? I would be very interested in more details!

keffers · Post by **keffers** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:32 pm

Don't need official statistics other than the GDP per capita of the countries from which the vast majority of people come and the types of jobs taken up. People from the UK in the main leave to retire / start a business after acquiring wealth.

Is there a single report anywhere in European media of waves of British citizens arriving virtually penniless with family in tow to work in the service industry and/or being provided with state assistance?

I would be very interested if there is.

Its not rocket science.

Post by **Obie** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:14 pm

It is important to not that there are over 1 million British Citizens residing in the EUropean Union (other than the UK).

Over half of the UK's trade is done with the European Union.

These notion of benefit tourist makes no sense to me. There are safeguards in the directive and the EEA regulations, to remove people who are an unreasonable burden to a states resource, or to refuse them benefits.

The UK has the right of residence test which people who want to claim benefit has to meet. A benefit tourist cannot certainly meet that rule.

It is important to note the the right of worker to claim to up benefits, was suggested by a British Advocate general, selected by the UK to represent the UK in the ECJ. The late Sir Gordon Slynn is a British and he recommended in his opinion in Kempf that a worker should not loose his/her status simply because they claim benefit.

He was also instrumental in Levni, in suggesting the definition of a worker.

Therefore irrespective of the rubbish that Mr Cameron utter about the EU or so called non-existent benefit tourism, the facts speaks otherwise.

Germany contributes far more significantly to the the EU than the UK, but we don't see them whinning.

It is hardly surprising that some segment of the EU are suggesting a two tier EU, where the UK is place on tier 2.

It is interesting that despite his toxic rhetoric on EU, Mr Cameron is suggesting a stay in.

fysicus · Post by **fysicus** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:42 am

As Obie already pointed out, there are ample safeguards in the EU rules against benefit tourism.
On top of that I would like to mention that the social support systems in most EU countries are far better than in the UK, so if intra-EU benefit tourism would be possible, it would likely lead to a net outflux from the UK rather than the other way around.

keffers · Post by **keffers** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:07 am

The UK has been a net contributor to the EU budget for 40 years (well over £100 Billion). I suspect the vast majority of the 1 million British citizens who live in the other countries of the EU are retired/semi-retired and have either bought their own homes and are self-sufficient (pension/savings).

A very simple example of how the system can be milked:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/274 ... ent-abroad

Its not the claimant's fault - its the system which is too generous and wide open to abuse.

If anyone on this board actually believes David Cameron to be opposed to British membership of the EU, they know little about him or his party.

Post by **Directive/2004/38/EC** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:56 pm

keffers,

You might be interested in some research done on free movement: DID THE EUROPEAN FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS AND RESIDENCE DIRECTIVE CHANGE MIGRATION PATTERNS WITHIN THE EU?

Secondly, in particular in the context of welfare tourism, the Swedish case after EU-enlargement cannot be ignored and is thus dealt with here. Sweden was one of the countries that did not apply any TA to new EU Member States. Thus, it is useful to have a closer look at whether changes in the migration flows to Sweden can be observed after such a short period.

keffers · Post by **keffers** » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:30 pm

Interesting article but not enough comparative data between countries on the benefits available and entitlement.

As usual, the potential immigration benefit is bolstered by reference to people who are not immigrants (descendants).

But see below for a different perspective:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... phole.html

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPapers#Economic

Managed immigration according to economic needs or virtually unlimited immigration on a wing and a prayer?

I know which makes more sense - but give me 1 hard-working immigrant over 100 home-grown layabouts any day of the week.

docteurbenway · Post by **docteurbenway** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:12 am

All discussions aside, has anyone heard of new developments on the infringement process against the UK? Any idea how long would this thing drag on?

frei · Post by **frei** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:57 am

One would expect it to be as long as 2 years.

kyky · Post by **kyky** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:28 pm

Hi all,

I requested the Commission to disclose the reply of the British Government from 24.07.2012. I beleive there is nothing wrong with posting the entire reply from the Commission since there is nothing confidential there.

I want to use the chance and appeal against their refusal. Please I need your help. I need all kind of ideas on how to motivate my appeal. I Have 2 weeks time from now.

From the answer below I deduce that the Commission has not initiated any further step in the infringement process since April 2012. With this speed of action the story will last for another decade.

I refer to your e-mail of 21 November 2012 applying for access to documents which has
been registered under reference Gestdem 2012/5516.
In your e-mail, you have requested access to the reply of the UK authorities to the
Commission's reasoned opinion related to infringement 2011/2054.
On 22 June 2011 the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against the UK under
Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for failure to
transpose Directive 2004/38/EC correctly. The UK authorities submitted their observations
on 22 September 2011.
As the UK reply was not satisfactory, the Commission addressed to the UK authorities on
26 April 2012 a Reasoned Opinion under Article 258 TFEU and invited the UK authorities
to take the necessary measures to comply with the Reasoned Opinion. The UK authorities
replied on 24 July 2012.
I regret to have to inform you that the document you require comes under the system of
exceptions provided for in the European legislation related to access to documents, and that
we cannot therefore provide it to you. The exception that applies to the document you
requested is enshrined in Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001, according
to which:
"The institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the
protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, unless there is an
overriding public interest in disclosure."
Indeed, the document requested concerns an on-going infringement procedure against the
UK, which, if disclosed, would undermine the protection of the purpose of the investigation
of compliance of UK law with EU law. It contains the interpretation of EU and UK laws by
the Commission and the UK authorities which was exchanged in the framework of the
assessment of the transposition of the Directive and possible infringement proceedings
under Article 258 TFEU.
Infringement investigations call for genuine co-operation and mutual trust between the
Commission and the Member State concerned so as to enable those two parties to open
discussions with a view to a resolution of the dispute.
I also consider that there is no overriding public interest in disclosing the document despite
the protection under Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001. The information
provided in the official Commission’s press release1 on the occasion of adoption of the
Reasoned Opinion strikes the right balance between protecting the above interests and
informing the public. There seems to be no need at this stage in further disclosing, even
partially, details of the Commission’s assessment of UK law before the Court of Justice of
the European Union provides an authoritative interpretation of EU law.
However, if you wish to appeal against this decision, you should write to the Commission
Secretary-General at the address below, repeating your initial request. You have fifteen
working days from receipt of this letter in which to appeal. Beyond this deadline, your
initial request will be considered withdrawn.
The Secretary-General will inform you of the outcome of this re-examination of your
request within fifteen working days of receipt of your request, either by granting you access
to the document or by confirming the refusal. In the latter case, she will also inform you of
any further appeal routes you may take.
All correspondence must be sent to:
The Secretary-General
European Commission
B-1049 BRUSSELS

Post by **EUsmileWEallsmile** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:08 pm

@kyky, I don't think the commission will change their mind and disclose any more. The procedure is being followed.

Note that the UK courts have appeared to have referred a case to the ECJ on this point anyway.

docteurbenway · Post by **docteurbenway** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:12 am

A "brilliant" and "sophisticated" article from the Daily Mail can be found here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml

And I quote:

"Today, the Mail starts a series on the potential consequences of throwing open Britain’s borders to countless immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria.
Citizens of these two desperately poor countries – sadly rife with corruption and organised criminality – describe how they are making eager preparations to travel here on January 1, when existing immigration controls are due to be lifted."

docteurbenway · Post by **docteurbenway** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:31 pm

Anything new here?

I made a new thread, cuz i wasn't able to find my previous posts:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/eea-ro ... 62152.html

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

EU Commission takes the UK to court

Entered UK with NO EEA permit!

Ryanair

Re: Ryanair

Re: EU Commission takes the UK to court