EEA case law

Hi,

I have an interesting and challenging question to the community where I require your valued opinion:

An example:

An EEA national has obtained a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation. The EEA national then later become also a British citizen. The EEA national holds subsequently two nationalities.

1. Does the EEA national lose the permanent right to reside under EEA regulation by becoming a British citizen?

2. If e.g. the NON-EEA spouse (who has also obtained a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation) wish to visit with the EEA national (who is at the same time also a British citizen) a Schengen state country (e.g. Netherland), does the NON-EEA spouse require a Schengenvisa or NOT (because she has a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation)?

3. If e.g. the parents of the EEA national wish to join him, can they apply under EEA route, because the EEA national (who is a British citizen) has already exercised EU Treaty rights?

Looking forward....

mclook23 wrote:Hi,

I have an interesting and challenging question to the community where I require your valued opinion:

An example:

An EEA national has obtained a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation. The EEA national then later become also a British citizen. The EEA national holds subsequently two nationalities.

1. Does the EEA national lose the permanent right to reside under EEA regulation by becoming a British citizen?

2. If e.g. the NON-EEA spouse (who has also obtained a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation) wish to visit with the EEA national (who is at the same time also a British citizen) a Schengen state country (e.g. Netherland), does the NON-EEA spouse require a Schengenvisa or NOT (because she has a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation)?

3. If e.g. the parents of the EEA national wish to join him, can they apply under EEA route, because the EEA national (who is a British citizen) has already exercised EU Treaty rights?

Looking forward....

1) A dual citizen is only considered to be a BC by UK domestic law.
British citizenship includes the right of abode in UK.

On naturalising as a UK citizen, a person who had settled status in the form of ILR 'loses' their ILR (but it doesn't matter - they don't need it anymore).

By the same logic, an EEA national would (likely) lose their PR (settled status) on becoming a British citizen, mutatis mutandis.

2) This may depend if the non-EEA national possesses a 'confirmation of PR' card (issued, I think under EU Article 20).

3) As UK considers a dual citizen to be a BC and not an EEA national (even if dual citizenship is still held) this will not fly except by means of the Surinder Singh route.
Ie when the BC has exercised treaty rights in a 3rd EU country (not UK and not their original country); they can then return to UK & operate (for immigration purposes) under EU rules and be treated as an EEA national.

Be aware Surinder Singh is complex & is not a guaranteed miracle cure for such immigration challenges as sponsoring dependent relatives.

Hi,

many thanks for your comment.

1) My understanding was that under EEA regulation PR status will be lost if the EEA national is absent for more than two consecutive years from the UK. So, if an EEA national becomes a British citizen, then under EEA regulation it should not implicate that the British citizen lost PR status (which was obtained under EEA regulation).

Do I understand it wrong?

In regard to 2) Let's assume NON-EEA spouse has PR status confirmed. Does the NON-EEA spouse require a Schengenvisa or NOT (because she has a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation)?

In regard to 3)

The key question could be whether PR status was lost or not (by becoming a British citizen). If it was not lost, then one would assume that EEA regulation is still applicable, because EU Treaty rights was / has been exercised.

There is a difference between a British citizen WHO has never exercised EU Treaty Rights and a EEA national who exercised EU Treaty Rights and then became a British citizen.

Does this makes sense?

mclook23 wrote:Hi,

many thanks for your comment.

1) My understanding was that under EEA regulation PR status will be lost if the EEA national is absent for more than two consecutive years from the UK. So, if an EEA national becomes a British citizen, then under EEA regulation it should not implicate that the British citizen lost PR status (which was obtained under EEA regulation).

Do I understand it wrong?

In regard to 2) Let's assume NON-EEA spouse has PR status confirmed. Does the NON-EEA spouse require a Schengenvisa or NOT (because she has a permanent right to reside under EEA regulation)?

In regard to 3)

The key question could be whether PR status was lost or not (by becoming a British citizen). If it was not lost, then one would assume that EEA regulation is still applicable, because EU Treaty rights was / has been exercised.

There is a difference between a British citizen WHO has never exercised EU Treaty Rights and a EEA national who exercised EU Treaty Rights and then became a British citizen.

Does this makes sense?

1) Not sure; I was reasoning by logic about PR based on what I know about ILR.

2) I understand an Article 20-issued PR card can be used in lieu of Schengen visa.
Let's see what the Europe-hands have to say on this matter.

3) Here you are reasoning by logic but in UK Immigration Regulations once a BC by any means then the EEA nationality of a dual-national is superseded.
The only option to regain rights under EU rules (in UK) is then via a 3rd country & Surinder Singh.

I am not a lawyer (and I believe neither is noajthan), so I am not learned in the law to be giving a legal opinion, but logic compels me to come to a similar conclusion to noajthan's.

mclook23 wrote:1. Does the EEA national lose the permanent right to reside under EEA regulation by becoming a British citizen?

mclook23 wrote:1) My understanding was that under EEA regulation PR status will be lost if the EEA national is absent for more than two consecutive years from the UK. So, if an EEA national becomes a British citizen, then under EEA regulation it should not implicate that the British citizen lost PR status (which was obtained under EEA regulation).

The original question was not appropriately framed. The situation is more nuanced.

A citizen of another EEA country acquires specific rights under the EU treaties when she is in the UK. Those rights arise out of treaties that the UK is party to, in common with other EU countries.

When such a citizen becomes a dual citizen of the UK and the other EEA country, I would say that the PR status is lost for different reasons from noajthan, but in turn is also superseded by the more immediate rights that citizenship of the UK grants that person. That is to say, that citizenship of the UK gives the person more immediate rights against the UK as compared to exercise of EEA treaty rights.

noajthan wrote:A dual citizen is only considered to be a BC by UK domestic law.

That is not just UK domestic law, but case law from the ECJ.

Paragraph 34 of the McCarthy Judgement of the ECJ states

Since, as stated in paragraph 29 of this judgment, the residence of a person residing in the Member State of which he is a national cannot be made subject to conditions, Directive 2004/38, concerning the conditions governing the exercise of the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, cannot apply to a Union citizen who enjoys an unconditional right of residence due to the fact that he resides in the Member State of which he is a national.

PR status is a part of Directive 2004/38. As it does not apply to dual British/EEA citizens, any underlying PR status that the EEA citizen had in the past is extinguished and is superseded by British citizenship.

mclook23 wrote:3. If e.g. the parents of the EEA national wish to join him, can they apply under EEA route, because the EEA national (who is a British citizen) has already exercised EU Treaty rights?

mclook23 wrote:There is a difference between a British citizen WHO has never exercised EU Treaty Rights and a EEA national who exercised EU Treaty Rights and then became a British citizen.

Nope. There is no difference between a British citizen who has exercised treaty rights in the past and who has never exercised treaty rights in the past. Once you are a citizen, you are a citizen and your EEA rights against the UK are extinguished by your more proximate relationship of citizenship of the UK.

What the Surinder Singh route allows you to do is that if you have strengthened or created family life while you are exercising your treaty rights (which only exist in an EEA country of which you are not a citizen) in another EEA country, then those members of the family can be treated under EEA law.

So, if you have exercised treaty rights in a country of which you are not a citizen and come back without any family members, you have no right to get them later. But if such a family member met you or stayed with you while you exercised treaty rights, they come under the purview of EEA law and the Surinder Singh judgment.

secret.simon wrote:I am not a lawyer (and I believe neither is noajthan), so I am not learned in the law to be giving a legal opinion, but logic compels me to come to a similar conclusion to noajthan's.

...

The original question was not appropriately framed. The situation is more nuanced.

...

Nope. There is no difference between a British citizen who has exercised treaty rights in the past and who has never exercised treaty rights in the past. Once you are a citizen, you are a citizen and your EEA rights against the UK are extinguished by your more proximate relationship of citizenship of the UK.

What the Surinder Singh route allows you to do is that if you have strengthened or created family life while you are exercising your treaty rights (which only exist in an EEA country of which you are not a citizen) in another EEA country, then those members of the family can be treated under EEA law.

So, if you have exercised treaty rights in a country of which you are not a citizen and come back without any family members, you have no right to get them later. But if such a family member met you or stayed with you while you exercised treaty rights, they come under the purview of EEA law and the Surinder Singh judgment.

I would concur - I am not a lawyer.

I am just someone who has had to struggle with & against the system.
I was an 'innocent abroad' & innocently fell into the Kafkaesque world of UK immigration law when I met my future wife on my travels.

As to the rest of the above, it is well-argued & makes sense.

I can't see any practical value to Q1; a BC has ROA that's all there is to say.

Q2 is (I thinK) about whether an Article 20 card can stand in for a Schengen visa.

Q3 is of most interest & practical value; Simon has expanded on the point I tried to highlight.

One thing I have learned in this field is you can't rely on logic or even common-sense. It's all about the letter of the law or directive or regulation.

noajthan wrote:I can't see any practical value to Q1; a BC has ROA that's all there is to say.

Q1 - I think what the OP was attempting to ask was if s/he retained EEA rights in addition to her British citizenship, so that she could rely on them rather than use the UK Immigration Rules. As the McCarthy judgment referenced above made clear, the answer is No.

Q2 - Paragraph 53 of a different McCarthy judgment states "the Member States cannot refuse family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid residence card, issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38, the right, as provided for in Article 5(2) of the directive, to enter their territory without a visa...". So the non-EEA family members of the OP who already holds a UK PR Card should have freedom of movement within the EU.

It is not immediately clear from the judgment whether such a right exists only if the family member is accompanied by the EEA citizen or on the way to meet them or such right exists independently of the EEA citizen and based solely on the card.

noajthan wrote:One thing I have learned in this field is you can't rely on logic or even common-sense. It's all about the letter of the law or directive or regulation.

The letter of the law can not provide for every eventuality and so, it is only appropriate that judges do use logic to bridge the gaps and holes in the law. This thread is intituled EEA Case law and we have looked at atleast three examples of where the judges have created rights that are not laid out in the text of the directive or treaties.

So, with respect to noajthan, I disagree and say that logic is a necessary part of the operation of the law. It is just that as mere citizens, our logic must bow to the logic of others more learned in the law (both the text and the operation of the law).

Hi,

here an excerpt of "McCarthy C-434/09"

In the ECJ case of McCarthy the court stated that a person who holds the nationality of the
host member state and has never exercised their right of free movement and residence:
 does not benefit from the terms of the Directive 2004/38/EC (the Directive), even if they
hold dual nationality with another EEA member state, and
 their family members cannot gain a right of residence under the directive on the basis of
their relationship to such a national.

So the McCartthy case says "AND has NEVER exercised their right of free movement and residence".

In other words I there must be a difference between a person who holds the nationality of the host member state and has exercised their right of free movement and residence.

I understand the explanation given by the community, however it appears that there is somewhere an area which is not clearly defined.

mclook23 wrote:Hi,

here an excerpt of "McCarthy C-434/09"

In the ECJ case of McCarthy the court stated that a person who holds the nationality of the
host member state and has never exercised their right of free movement and residence:
 does not benefit from the terms of the Directive 2004/38/EC (the Directive), even if they
hold dual nationality with another EEA member state, and
 their family members cannot gain a right of residence under the directive on the basis of
their relationship to such a national.

So the McCartthy case says "AND has NEVER exercised their right of free movement and residence".

In other words I there must be a difference between a person who holds the nationality of the host member state and has exercised their right of free movement and residence.

I understand the explanation given by the community, however it appears that there is somewhere an area which is not clearly defined.

McCarthy was a case that was very limited in scope, the judge's remarks on the case reflected that.
The claimant/appellant lost her case.

The UK Immigration regulations were consequently amended after that case;
the regulations do now refer to McCarthy in the context of dual nationals.

However, the regulations as amended do not limit themselves to persons who are economically-inactive (as the appellant was said to be) nor to persons who never exercised free movement/treaty rights.

HMG appear to have ignored the judge's remarks (made at time of McCarthy ruling) & incorporated the outcome of the McCarthy case into restrictive EU regulations.

This is clear in versions published on Gov UK as recently as this year:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_v2_0.pdf

& as per post from Vinny, ref:
http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... l#p1236091

EEA national” means a national of an EEA State who is not also a British citizen

The impact of McCarthy case is conveyed quite clearly here:
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/migrat ... tions-2006

The new Regulations do take an expansive approach to the Court of Justice case law to restrict the rights of people to reside in the UK.

For example, family members of dual British/EEA can no longer enjoy residence rights under the Regulations (unless the British/EEA national has lived in another EEA State) and must rely instead on the increasingly restrictive Immigration Rules.

It is not obvious from her post if the OP read the entire judgment, apart from the excerpt. The reason that the ECJ judgment had the words quoted by the OP is because the UK Supreme Court asked the question in those terms. Paragraph 21 of the judgment states...

In that context, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘1. Is a person of dual Irish and United Kingdom nationality who has resided in the United Kingdom for her entire life a “beneficiary” within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2004/38 …?

Also see Paragraph 26.

It may come as a surprise to many people on these forums, but Community law applies only in very specific circumstances. Community law (the EU acquis communitaire) only applies when rights are given by treaties and directives made under the treaty.

One such right is the right of Citizens of the European Union to reside in any EU country.
Article 20 of the TFEU states;

Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:

(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

That is a treaty right and as long as it is exercised, Community law comes into play.

However, the ECJ has also acknowledged that the citizen of a country has an absolute right in international law to reside in the countries of which he is a citizen and hence treaty rights are not exercised by residing in a country of which a person is a citizen. See Paragraph 29 of the McCarthy judgment.

Now moving on to the narrower field of rights listed in Directive 2004/38/EC, which give rights to family members and extended family members of EEA nationals.

Paragraph 32 of the McCarthy judgment points out

First, according to Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, all Union citizens who ‘move to’ or reside in a Member State ‘other’ than that of which they are a national are beneficiaries of that directive.

On the face of it, it would seem to reinforce the OP's point that s/he is still covered by the Directive as she had, in the past, exercised EEEA treaty rights by moving to the UK.

But (and there is always a but in such cases) Paragraph 34, referred to in an earlier post, states that because the right to reside in a country of which a person is a citizen exists in international law independently of Community law, a person is not exercising treaty rights by residing in a country of which s/he is a citizen. His/her rights as a citizen of the country supercede treaty rights.

Paragraph 37 of the judgment also points out

...the rights of residence referred to in Directive 2004/38, namely both the right of residence under Articles 6 and 7 and the permanent right of residence under Article 16, refer to the residence of a Union citizen either in ‘another Member State’ or in ‘the host Member State’ and therefore govern the legal situation of a Union citizen in a Member State of which he is not a national.

Thus, even if the OP were to be exercising treaty rights, s/he has at the very least taken him/herself out of the purview of Directive 2004/38/EC and hence her family members can not benefit from her having been a former EEA national resident in the UK.

noajthan wrote:The new Regulations do take an expansive approach to the Court of Justice case law to restrict the rights of people to reside in the UK.

I fail to see any other interpretation of the judgment. It is not an expansive approach, it is the only possible approach that fulfils the logic of what the ECJ said.

secret.simon wrote: On the face of it, it would seem to reinforce the OP's point that s/he is still covered by the Directive as she had, in the past, exercised EEEA treaty rights by moving to the UK.

But (and there is always a but in such cases) Paragraph 34, referred to in an earlier post, states that because the right to reside in a country of which a person is a citizen exists in international law independently of Community law, a person is not exercising treaty rights by residing in a country of which s/he is a citizen. His/her rights as a citizen of the country supercede treaty rights.

A person with PR status don't have to exercise treaty rights anymore.
I my opinion a status which was given via the directive can only be revoked via the directive. The reasons for revoking PR status are clearly defined in the directive.

mgb wrote:I my opinion a status which was given via the directive can only be revoked via the directive.

Except when the Directive itself becomes non-operative. THE ECJ was quite clear that the Directive does not apply in any country of which the person is a national.

So PR status is not "lost" from the perspective of the Directive, but as the Directive itself has ceased to apply to the OP, any status deriving from it have ceased to be.

mgb wrote:A person with PR status don't have to exercise treaty rights anymore.

Does a person with PR status not need to be exercising treaty rights for the purpose of getting family members to join them in the UK?

secret.simon wrote: Except when the Directive itself becomes non-operative. THE ECJ was quite clear that the Directive does not apply in any country of which the person is a national.

Not exactly. Only if the person never exercised treaty rights.

secret.simon wrote: Does a person with PR status not need to be exercising treaty rights for the purpose of getting family members to join them in the UK?

No.

mgb wrote:Not exactly. Only if the person never exercised treaty rights.

Even if the person has exercised treaty rights, the exercise of treaty rights cease when s/he becomes a citizen of a country. His right to reside as a citizen eclipse the treaty right of freedom of movement and hence the Directive ceases to apply.

As an aside, is anybody staying up to see the supermoon eclipse at about 2AM BST?

mgb wrote:

secret.simon wrote: Does a person with PR status not need to be exercising treaty rights for the purpose of getting family members to join them in the UK?

No.

I was under the impression that even EU citizens with PR status in the UK needed to exercise treaty rights for the five years it would take their non-EEA family members to acquire PR. Is that not correct?

I apologise that my earlier question was not specific enough.

secret.simon wrote:

mgb wrote:Not exactly. Only if the person never exercised treaty rights.

Even if the person has exercised treaty rights, the exercise of treaty rights cease when s/he becomes a citizen of a country. His right to reside as a citizen eclipse the treaty right of freedom of movement and hence the Directive ceases to apply.

Ceasing rights is not mentioned in the directive. Only reasons for losing rights.

mgb wrote:Ceasing rights is not mentioned in the directive. Only reasons for losing rights.

I think we can agree to disagree on this point I have mentioned my grounds for suggesting that the Directive itself ceasing to apply in the situation defined. But I still look forward to any posts disputing my logic, which I believe is the logic underpinning the judgment.

You cannot kill eu law via national law.
The EOJ stated the directive is not applicable for dual citizen only if the citizen never exercised treaty rights.
It is the decision of the dual citizen which owning right he want to use.

secret.simon wrote:

mgb wrote:Ceasing rights is not mentioned in the directive. Only reasons for losing rights.

I think we can agree to disagree on this point I have mentioned my grounds for suggesting that the Directive itself ceasing to apply in the situation defined. But I still look forward to any posts disputing my logic, which I believe is the logic underpinning the judgment.

My somewhat simpler understanding is that UK law does not recognise a BC who happens to be a dual national with EEA citizenship to be an EEA national whilst they are in the UK;
only the British aspect of their 2 citizenships is recognised by HMG.

So whilst UK will recognise said citizen's RoA in the UK as they are now a BC their previous settled status (ILR) has been superseded by the act of naturalisation as a BC.

Furthermore, (I think), as far as HMG is concerned their PR (ie the settled status previously acquired as an EEA national) is similarly considered to be superseded whilst the citizen is under British jurisdiction;
mutatis mutandis.

Note: I am putting aside the complication of BC's who are EEA dual nationals & who have exercised Surinder Singh & returned to UK.

mgb wrote:You cannot kill eu law via national law.

I would be very chary of such a sweeping statement. It is this kind of statement that elevates EU law over national law that could lead to a Brexit. And I speak as a pro-European.

Also international law does trump EU law. It is a principle of international law (the Master Nationality Rule) that when a dual citizen is in the country of one of his nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country.

noajthan wrote:
So whilst UK will recognise said citizen's RoA in the UK as they are now a BC their previous settled status (ILR) has been superseded by the act of naturalisation as a BC.

There is no settled status. ILR is a status which can reached via the UK national immigration route.
A EEA citizen and family member can reach the status permanent residence due to the directive.

secret.simon wrote:
Also international law does trump EU law.

Can you refer to this international law which supersede eu law?

mgb wrote:There is no settled status. ILR is a status which can reached via the UK national immigration route.

I find it odd you assert there is no 'settled status' in the context of UK immigration.

It's moot as OP is not participating in his/her thread anymore.
However a quick look at Gov UK website shows the language used is all about settling & settlement.
By extension, persons who do this may have settled status.

An official briefing document googled at random also discusses & defines 'settled status':
https://informationformps.homeoffice.go ... 1-1-73.pdf

Settled is construed in accordance with section 33(2A) of the 1971 Immigration Act (as inserted by the British Nationality Act 1981) as being ordinarily resident in the UK without being subject under immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which (s)he may remain.

Once a person is settled they must continue to reside in the UK in order to retain their settled status

(sic)

noajthan wrote:I find it odd you assert there is no 'settled status' in the context of UK immigration.

@noajthan
I think that mgb is looking at the law purely textually and in isolation. Settled Status, as stated in the document that you linked to, is granted by the Immigration Act 1971, as subsequently amended. But of course, EEA citizens and their family members are not here under the Immigration Act and hence it can be argued that strictly speaking, there is no such thing called settled status for them.

From our point of view, ILR and PR, while achieved in different ways and under different laws, confirm identical benefits (access to benefits, access to naturalisation, children being British by birth if born in the UK, etc) and hence we call both those statuses as settled status.

Given that we are discussing the theory of the law, here is another question for these forums.
Irish citizens are treated as if settled on arrival. Section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949 states

It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom....and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to foreigners, aliens...shall be construed accordingly.

In this case, could an Irish citizen married to a British citizen apply for naturalisation on arrival in the UK? And could Irish citizens apply for British citizenship within a year of arrival anyway?

mgb wrote:

secret.simon wrote: Also international law does trump EU law.

Can you refer to this international law which supersede eu law?

Certainly. It followed the line from my earlier post quoted by you.

secret.simon wrote:It is a principle of international law (the Master Nationality Rule) that when a dual citizen is in the country of one of his nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country.

It seems to me that immigration, not the Eurozone economy, is going to be the torpedo that sinks the EU ship. I am not sure if anybody on these forums noticed, but Switzerland's treaties with the EU (giving Swiss citizens the same status as EEA citizens) will expire in February 2017 because the Swiss people decided in a referendum to reimpose immigration controls and quotas. We have an EU membership referendum coming up in the next two years (more likely in 2016) and thus far it seems to be a close-run thing. The migration crisis on the continent has brought home to countries in Eastern Europe (so far countries of net emigration) that they will also be forced, by EU/Community law, to accept people whose culture is not aligned with theirs. I think their loyalty to the EU as a quasi-state will be sufficiently weakened for Cameron to win concessions on limiting EU control over migration.

In such a scenario, to trumpet that Community law triumphs over national law is not the wisest approach. Community law is here at the invitation of national law and as the Swiss did, can be sent packing if it attempts to overreach its limited jurisdiction.

Here is an update:

In general terms, a permanent residence permit for EU citizens is useful when dealing with the authorities or for administrative formalities. The authorities may no longer require you to prove that you have a job, sufficient resources, health insurance, and so on.

More information can be found here:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/re ... dex_en.htm

Based on the information provided, we cannot assess your situation and do not understand what the permanent residence would be of use for someone who is already a citizen of that country.

You will find comprehensive information on the right to move and reside freely within the EU below:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/doc ... 013_en.pdf

With regard to your second question, non-EU family members of an EU national may need a visa to travel within the EU. This will depend on several factors; what kind of residence permit the non-EU national holds, for example.

To confirm if a visa is required, we suggest that you contact the consulate of the country of destination:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/na ... dex_en.htm

According to EU law, if a visa is required it shall be issued free of charge and on the basis of an accelerated procedure (Article 5.2 of Directive 2004/38/EC).

We invite you to read more about visa requirements and exemptions for non-EU family members here:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/tr ... dex_en.htm

More information about the required travel documents for non-EU family members can be found here:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/tr ... dex_en.htm

If you face any problems, there are two EU services that may be of help. You can contact the Your Europe Advice legal experts to know more about your rights under EU law. You may also contact SOLVIT to get practical help in getting your rights recognised by a national administration.
We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if you have other questions.