NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into effect

Use this section for queries concerning applications on any of the EEA series of forms, and also for applications for EEA Family Permits.

Moderators: Casa, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, push, sbrennan

NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into effect

Postby Obie » Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:27 pm

The Home Office has decided to bring new laws from 25-11-2016.

Some of this laws like the Surinder Singh changes are designed to deliberately breach EU law.

It appears that the Court will be very busy.

The most immediate of the changes, is making it clear that Extended Family members have no appeal rights, that is from the 25-11-2016.

Surinder Singh changes also coming into place on the 25-11-2016.

New definition of marriage of convenience provision, which also violates EU law.

The court will simply have to set these provisions aside.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1052/made
You haven't lived today successfully, unless you've done something for someone who can never repay you.'
Obie
Moderator
 
Posts: 11366
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:06 am
Location: UK/Ireland

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby secret.simon » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:25 pm

These new regulations do seem to be aimed squarely at the Surinder Singh route. Indeed, at a quick glance through, the only major change seems to have been Regulation 9, the one that applies to the SS Route. As a comparision, here is the current Regulation 9.

Here are some of the most significant changes that I could spot at a glance. I am sure Obie and vinny will go into further depth.

a) SS sponsors do not need to be workers in the EEA state. They can be exercising treaty rights in any category except job-seeker. So, self-sufficient people can also sponsor their direct family members.

b) This one is a biggie, in my opinion. Only direct family members can be included in the SS route. No more EFM migration via the SS route.

This bit may possibly be legal. The original SS judgment only applied to the spouse (and possibly children). And even the Directive 2004/38/EC only asks for EFMs to be facilitated and gives no further rights. Indeed, prima facie, I do not even see a requirement for EFMs to be issued Residence Cards under the EEA Regulations. The Rahman judgment states that each application must be assessed on individual merits and the requirements for assessment must consistent with the word "facilitate", but also that there is no absolute right to an EFM family permit.

This may also signal a potential hardening of the requirements for EFMs on the way.

c) It bluntly states (Paragraph 4(a)) that the SS Route does not apply if it appears to be used as a way around the Immigration Rules. That will be a hugely subjective assessment and I daresay that the courts will have to strike it out merely because it is so subjective and wide.

d) It also states that one factor regarding testing genuineness of applicability of the Regulation is whether the direct family member's first residence with the SS sponsor in the EU has been in the EEA state that the SS sponsor is exercising treaty rights in.

e) Unusually, it seems to me that Paragraph 2 of the transitory provisions states that SS applications made before 25th November (when the new provisions come into effect), but not decided by that date, will be assessed according to the new provisions. I can imagine that that is going to run into deep legal waters. I am fairly certain that this will be the first provision to be questioned and thrown out by the courts.

The rest of the provisions seem to be a tidying up exercise of renumbering provisions. If I am correct in my assessment, can I request the moderators to rename the thread so as to highlight its applicability to the SS route?

I wonder if it is a mere coincidence that these Regulations have come out on the same day as when the Government lost in the High Court about triggering Article 50. Perhaps it wants to demonstrate that delinking EU law from UK law is already in progress.

A question for the lawyers on these forums: Assuming that appeals reach the courts after May next year, when the Government has said that it will introduce the Great Repeal Bill into Parliament, can the government argue in court that the question of EU law applying is moot (in the American sense of the word) as the delinking is being debated in Parliament?

I am fairly certain that I will be corrected in very short order if I am wrong in my observations, but Obie, can I request you to keep a civil tone, no matter how outraged you are (as you undoubtedly will be)?

Also see this blog post on the Freedom of Movement blog.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice. Being a Respected Guru does not mean I know more, it just means I can google better. Google knows it all.
secret.simon
Respected Guru
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby zahmed05 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:13 pm

Will parents be treated as extended family member or direct family member. My understanding is that parents will still be able to do SS if they meet new requirements. Is that correct?

Regards,
Zeeshan
zahmed05
Member
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:39 am

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby secret.simon » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:43 am

Parents who have proved dependency are direct family members, not extended family members.

But it is not improbable that the Home Office may tighten the requirements for proving dependency.

Also, as you can see in the new Regulation, the requirements for the genuineness of the EEA residency have been laid out in much more detail and the period of residency has been explicitly stated as a factor in determining genuineness. So, somebody who resided in Germany for 10 years would have a better chance of the SS route as compared to somebody popping over to Ireland for four months.

A crucial difference between the new Regulation and conventional EU legal interpretation is that the latter do not look at intent (so for instance, the government should not look at why parents choose dependency even if they have their own resources or why the SS sponsor is exercising treaty rights in an EEA state), while the former does. That is why a large chunk of Regulation 9 will likely be thrown out by the courts.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice. Being a Respected Guru does not mean I know more, it just means I can google better. Google knows it all.
secret.simon
Respected Guru
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby alphagear » Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:06 am

Does this mean out of country appeals for all including refusals under centre of life etc?

About self sufficient, does british citizens need csi in the UK too when they have returned? or just for spouse?
alphagear
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:33 am

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby noajthan » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:11 am

This topic is not for random questions on SS route etc.

Topic: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into effect
Migration is a journey not a destination. When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. E&OE.
noajthan
Moderator
 
Posts: 14282
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby mak35 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:29 am

secret.simon wrote:
d) It also states that one factor regarding testing genuineness of applicability of the Regulation is whether the direct family member's first residence with the SS sponsor in the EU has been in the EEA state that the SS sponsor is exercising treaty rights in.


Hi there,
I do not understand this point please can someone elaborate a bit more here. What does it mean by direct family member's first residence with SS sponsor and if it is the first residence with SS sponsor then is it a positive or negative thing to have.

I have been exercising my treaty rights in Germany since June 2016.
Me and my parents arrived in Germany on 20th May. I travelled from UK and they travelled from Pakistan on the same day.
We got registered together on 1st June. In the month of June based on my UK Ltd company work in Germany I applied for their residence and they were issued with 5 year RC on the spot (of course RC came later on)

When I was living in UK they had regularly visited me in the last 10-15 years. But we moved to Germany together, got registered together and have been living in the same property together since June. They also have their health insurances, bank statements, couple of bills on their names.

That was just a background but I don't understand if this is counted as their first residence with SS sponsor in EU and whether it is seen as a positive or negative thing?
mak35
Newbie
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:29 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby anvish » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:19 pm

e) Unusually, it seems to me that Paragraph 2 of the transitory provisions states that SS applications made before 25th November (when the new provisions come into effect), but not decided by that date, will be assessed according to the new provisions. I can imagine that that is going to run into deep legal waters. I am fairly certain that this will be the first provision to be questioned and thrown out by the courts.



Hi
I think the TRANSITORY PROVISIONS changes only affect made on or after 25th November 2016?

2. Between the coming into force of the provisions covered by regulation 1(2)(a) and the coming into force of the remaining provisions covered by regulation 1(2)(b) an application under the 2006 Regulations for—

(a)an EEA family permit;
(b)a registration certificate;
(c)a residence card;
(d)a document certifying permanent residence;
(e)a permanent residence card; or
(f)a derivative residence card;
made but not determined before 25th November 2016 is to be treated as having been made under the 2006 Regulations, as amended by paragraph 1 of this Schedule.


thanks
anvish
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 3:44 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby noajthan » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:37 pm

anvish wrote:
... made but not determined before 25th November 2016 is to be treated as having been made under the 2006 Regulations, as amended by paragraph 1 of this Schedule.


thanks


But note the sting in the tail :!:
Migration is a journey not a destination. When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. E&OE.
noajthan
Moderator
 
Posts: 14282
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby noajthan » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:48 pm

secret.simon wrote:These new regulations do seem to be aimed squarely at the Surinder Singh route. Indeed, at a quick glance through, the only major change seems to have been Regulation 9, the one that applies to the SS Route. As a comparision, here is the current Regulation 9.

Here are some of the most significant changes that I could spot at a glance. I am sure Obie and vinny will go into further depth.

...

Also see this blog post on the Freedom of Movement blog.


Puzzling.
The new Regulation 9(7) seems to ignore case law of Eind(C-291/05) if it means and expects BC sponsor to be continuing to exercise treaty rights on return to UK ( :?: :!: )
Migration is a journey not a destination. When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. E&OE.
noajthan
Moderator
 
Posts: 14282
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby secret.simon » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:09 pm

anvish wrote:I think the TRANSITORY PROVISIONS changes only affect made on or after25th November 2016?
2. Between the coming into force of the provisions covered by regulation 1(2)(a) and the coming into force of the remaining provisions covered by regulation 1(2)(b) an application under the 2006 Regulations for—

(a)an EEA family permit;
(b)a registration certificate;
(c)a residence card;
(d)a document certifying permanent residence;
(e)a permanent residence card; or
(f)a derivative residence card;
made but not determined before 25th November 2016 is to be treated as having been made under the 2006 Regulations, as amended by paragraph 1 of this Schedule.

Not as per my plain English reading. Let me translate that quote a little bit, the way I understand it.

2. Between [25th November 2016 and 1st February 2017] an application under the 2006 Regulations for [a document under the EEA Regulations]
made but not determined before 25th November 2016 is to be treated as having been made under the 2006 Regulations, as amended by paragraph 1 of this Schedule.

So, any SS application made before 25th November, but not decided by that date, would be decided by paragraph 1. If you read it up, paragraph 1 is identical to the new Regulation 9.

So, all the HO has to do (and may already have planned on doing) is sit on all SS applications till 25th November and then apply the new SS regulations.

Remember that I am not a lawyer and I am sure that they would correct me (in pretty sharpish language) if I am far wrong.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice. Being a Respected Guru does not mean I know more, it just means I can google better. Google knows it all.
secret.simon
Respected Guru
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby secret.simon » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:21 pm

noajthan wrote:The new Regulation 9(7) seems to ignore Eind if it means and expects BC sponsor to be continuing to exercise treaty rights on return to UK.

Actually it is the other way around. It actually implements Eind directly and explicitly into the Regulations.

(7) For the purposes of determining whether, when treating the BC as an EEA national under these Regulations in accordance with paragraph (1), BC would be a qualified person—
(a) any requirement to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom still applies, save that it does not require the cover to extend to BC;
(b) in assessing whether BC can continue to be treated as a worker under regulation 6(2)(b) or (c), BC is not required to satisfy condition A;
(c) in assessing whether BC can be treated as a jobseeker as defined in regulation 6(1), BC is not required to satisfy conditions A and, where it would otherwise be relevant, condition C.

The conditions for EEA Citizens to be a qualified person are listed in Regulation 6, from Paragraph 5 onwards.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice. Being a Respected Guru does not mean I know more, it just means I can google better. Google knows it all.
secret.simon
Respected Guru
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby noajthan » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:27 pm

secret.simon wrote:
noajthan wrote:The new Regulation 9(7) seems to ignore Eind if it means and expects BC sponsor to be continuing to exercise treaty rights on return to UK.

Actually it is the other way around. It actually implements Eind directly and explicitly into the Regulations.

(7) For the purposes of determining whether, when treating the BC as an EEA national under these Regulations in accordance with paragraph (1), BC would be a qualified person—
(a) any requirement to have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom still applies, save that it does not require the cover to extend to BC;
(b) in assessing whether BC can continue to be treated as a worker under regulation 6(2)(b) or (c), BC is not required to satisfy condition A;
(c) in assessing whether BC can be treated as a jobseeker as defined in regulation 6(1), BC is not required to satisfy conditions A and, where it would otherwise be relevant, condition C.

The conditions for EEA Citizens to be a qualified person are listed in Regulation 6, from Paragraph 5 onwards.


But Simon, as per Eind, my understanding is there is no need for a BC to exercise treaty rights at all (on their eventual return to Blighty) so no concessions should be required.
By virtue of Eind being a QP is simply out of scope for a BC. So they don't need to be QPs with a concession on CSI (etc) applied.
All they need to do (currently) is return and simply reside in UK keeping any absences within limits.
Migration is a journey not a destination. When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. E&OE.
noajthan
Moderator
 
Posts: 14282
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:31 am
Location: UK

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby mkhan2525 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:48 pm

More details on why the Home Office is introducing these changes.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016 ... 052_en.pdf
mkhan2525
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby MrSlyFox » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:26 pm

Under the new regulation Nine: Introduced under the 2016 act which will apply from the 25th of November. The factors relevant to determine genuine residence - section 9. Subsection 3.

(a) whether the centre of BC’s life transferred to the EEA State;
(b) the length of F and BC’s joint residence in the EEA State;
(c) the nature and quality of the F and BC’s accommodation in the EEA State, and whether it
is or was BC’s principal residence;
(d) the degree of F and BC’s integration in the EEA State;
(e) whether F’s first lawful residence in the EU with BC was in the EEA State.


What do people think will meet these "factors" they appear very vague to me such as - (e) whether F’s first lawful residence in the EU with BC was in the EEA State.

Would it be seen as an attempt to avoid the UK domestic legalisation by first residing in the UK prior to moving with the family member to a EU State if that family member for example was subject to immigration control i.e. a student for example?

Presumably, it should say instead [first residence in the EEA be in the EEA state] as not all EEA states are in the EU?
MrSlyFox
Newbie
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:58 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby anvish » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:12 pm


(b)the length of F and BC’s joint residence in the EEA State;


(e)whether F’s first lawful residence in the EU with BC was in the EEA State.

what is this mean?


Me( British Citizen) and my wife resided in Ireland for 1 year and I worked there for 9 months
and her ( family member - my wife) first EU residence was in Ireland (EEA State)
Is it long enough for RC ?

Thanks
anvish
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 3:44 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby manicminer » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:57 am

anvish wrote:
(b)the length of F and BC’s joint residence in the EEA State;


(e)whether F’s first lawful residence in the EU with BC was in the EEA State.

what is this mean?


Me( British Citizen) and my wife resided in Ireland for 1 year and I worked there for 9 months
and her ( family member - my wife) first EU residence was in Ireland (EEA State)
Is it long enough for RC ?

Thanks


Yes, legally, at least on the basis of what you've said. In practice, it will depend on the case officer who processes your application. Have your paperwork checked before you apply.
manicminer
Newbie
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:02 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby manicminer » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:01 am

The new rules seem to be the implementation 'in-print' of how FP and RC applications have been getting assessed for quite some time.

Now they are assessing the quality of a resident's accommodation...
manicminer
Newbie
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:02 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby anvish » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:06 am

manicminer wrote:
anvish wrote:
(b)the length of F and BC’s joint residence in the EEA State;


(e)whether F’s first lawful residence in the EU with BC was in the EEA State.

what is this mean?


Me( British Citizen) and my wife resided in Ireland for 1 year and I worked there for 9 months
and her ( family member - my wife) first EU residence was in Ireland (EEA State)
Is it long enough for RC ?

Thanks


Yes, legally, at least on the basis of what you've said. In practice, it will depend on the case officer who processes your application. Have your paperwork checked before you apply.



Already applied in 2016 july.. got COA with work Waiting for RC...I did send All Doc's including Bank statements, payslips,tax p60 + tax credit certificate , tenancy doc's, GP letters and Doc's, ireland RC card 6 year one ( normally it's 5 year), and passports, family permit etc
anvish
Newbie
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 3:44 pm

Re: NEW EEA Regulation that violates EU law coming into eff

Postby alphagear » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:36 pm

when do out of country appeals apply to eea applications?
alphagear
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:33 am

Next

Return to EEA-route Applications

 


  • Related topics
    Views
    Replies
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], JandE1726, KarmaPolice and 65 guests