Amendment to EEA Regulation from 1/01/2014 Singh diluted

[Amber]

Advocate General Eleanor V. E. Sharpston of the ECJ opinion due tomorrow in the case of O & B, Case C-457/12.

[ALKB]

in order to acquire a right of residence in the UK for his or her non-EEA family member

Thats discrimination. Notice it does not apply to Brit bringing in a European partner

How would it apply to a European partner?

A European would not need a visa in the first place to move to the UK. Neither would they need a partner to do so.

[Obie]

Advocate General Eleanor V. E. Sharpston of the ECJ opinion due tomorrow in the case of O & B, Case C-457/12.

Thanks Amber for the reply to Directive.

There are many changes to the regulations, but Surinder Singh seems to be the major one.

The changes involving ban on people who facilitate marriage of convenience or abusive treaty rights, the one year ban on entry, changes to incoporate the right of people who were previously exercising treaty rights in order category becoming workers.


Also the consolidated EEA Regulations will need to be amended at the start of the new year, and end of March 14, to reflect these changes.

[357mag]

in order to acquire a right of residence in the UK for his or her non-EEA family member

Thats discrimination. Notice it does not apply to Brit bringing in a European partner

How would it apply to a European partner?

A European would not need a visa in the first place to move to the UK. Neither would they need a partner to do so.

If a Brit had a partner from another EEA country yes the partner could come in for 3 months but would then need to be working etc. But if she was to stay home as housewife she could no longer stay. They might try EUTR in such a case.

[AngieD]

in order to acquire a right of residence in the UK for his or her non-EEA family member

Thats discrimination. Notice it does not apply to Brit bringing in a European partner

How would it apply to a European partner?

A European would not need a visa in the first place to move to the UK. Neither would they need a partner to do so.

If a Brit had a partner from another EEA country yes the partner could come in for 3 months but would then need to be working etc. But if she was to stay home as housewife she could no longer stay. They might try EUTR in such a case.

They could be "self sufficient"

[357mag]

Sorry dont want to se the thread go off track.

[Obie]

Sorry dont want to se the thread go off track.

Me too

[dalebutt]

Obie could you clarify this please, just to make sure I am understanding this, the potential judgement of O does not practically affect a worker wishing to do SS? Does it only affect the recipient of services?

[stars]

How would it apply to a European national living and working in uk and wanna apply EEA family permit for their non EEA spouse?

[jinkazama_11]

How would it apply to a European national living and working in uk and wanna apply EEA family permit for their non EEA spouse?

wont apply to eu national working and living in uk

[Obie]

Obie could you clarify this please, just to make sure I am understanding this, the potential judgement of O does not practically affect a worker wishing to do SS? Does it only affect the recipient of services?

You are very right. Although some aspect of it will have an effect on Surinder Singh.

[Obie]

Opinion of Advocate General Sharpton is out. At least it came from a British selected official of the European Union

[logical_1]

So according to this,are the recent changes made by ukba to surinder singh route unjustifiable?

[euroguys]

Reading this my initial take is good news for O if you have resided lawfully in a host state and been issued with a residence card then apon return to your own state you must be treated at least with equal treatment that you had in the host state.

So that could/would mean a derived right of residence for your family members (you might not benifit under eindt but to same level as any other EU national?? Comments?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 56:EN:HTML







21. In October 2006, O, a Nigerian national, married sponsor O in France. He took up residence in Spain in 2007. Since August 2009, O and sponsor O have been registered as residing there together. A residence document valid until September 2014 attests that O resides in Spain in his capacity as a family member of an EU citizen.

22. However, two months after arriving in Spain, sponsor O in fact returned to the Netherlands because she could not find work in Spain. From 2007 to April 2010, she none the less repeatedly spent time, mostly weekends, in Spain with O and, during those visits, enjoyed services there. Since 1 July 2010, O has been registered as residing with sponsor O in the Netherlands.

23. It would appear that there is no evidence that, during all of this time, sponsor O cancelled her residence registration in the Netherlands.

24. O applied for a document showing lawful residence. The Minister rejected that request and declared unfounded O’s challenge to that decision. O appealed to the rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, the Hague; ‘the rechtbank’) which, on 7 July 2011, rejected the appeal. O then appealed against that judgment to the referring court.



In Case C‑456/12 O:

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States does not apply directly to EU citizens returning to their Member State of nationality. However, the Member State of nationality may not give such EU citizens less favourable treatment than that owed to them as a matter of EU law in the Member State from which they moved to their Member State of nationality. As a result, Directive 2004/38 indirectly sets out the minimum standard of treatment that a returning EU citizen and his family members must enjoy in the EU citizen’s Member State of nationality.

(2) EU law does not require an EU citizen to have resided for any minimum period of time in another Member State in order for his third country national family members to claim a derived right of residence in the Member State of nationality to which the EU citizen then returns.

(3) An EU citizen exercises his right of residence in another Member State if he makes that Member State the place where the habitual centre of his interests lies. Provided that, when all relevant facts are taken into account, that test is satisfied, it is irrelevant in this context whether that EU citizen keeps another form of residence elsewhere or whether his physical presence in the Member State of residence is regularly or irregularly interrupted.

(4) Where time elapses between the return of the EU citizen to the Member State of which he is a national and the arrival of the third country national family member in that Member State, the family member’s entitlement to a derived right of residence in that Member State does not lapse provided that the decision to join the EU citizen is taken in the exercise of their right to a family life.

[gismanchester]

i think every body reading this lengthy opinion from Advocate General, could any one explain in simple words


thanks

[Obie]

It is a nice opinion. Generally positive. It will have a fundamental changes to the EEA Regulations if adopted. He will most likely be adopted, as 90% of the time, opinions are adopted.

It does not seem to endorse the views of the UK legislation or changes to Surinder Singh .

[gismanchester]

It is a nice opinion. Generally positive. It will have a fundamental changes to the EEA Regulations.

It does not seem to endorse the views of the UK legislation or changes to Surinder Singh .

Hi Obie

thanks for reply, i think its favourable opinion except this:

159 (3)
An EU citizen exercises his right of residence in another Member State if he makes that Member State the place where the habitual centre of his interests lies. Provided that, when all relevant facts are taken into account, that test is satisfied, it is irrelevant in this context whether that EU citizen keeps another form of residence elsewhere or whether his physical presence in the Member State of residence is regularly or irregularly interrupted.

This is precisely the same what UKBA is trying to introduce. This opinion, if accepted by the court, will be a night mare for all those who have ties in national state (like a house, family members or bank accounts etc)and only go to another state for Job etc.

[Obie]

That conclusion has to be read in the context of par 96-111, emphasis being paid on 110.

If that was the position of the UKBA, I will have no issue. They already have a 6months fefacto residence requirement in place.

It is important that Mrs Sharpton rejected the 3 months requirement.

[euroguys]

Whats the timescale normaly for adoption of a conclusion into case law?

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Whats the timescale normaly for adoption of a conclusion into case law?

Court decisions have immediate effect.

AJ are recommendations for the court

Edited:

[Obie]

Whats the timescale normaly for adoption of a conclusion into case law?

This is not a full decision yet. It is an opinion from an Advocate General.

It is the first stage before a Judgement. The Judgement usually adopts the Opinion of the Advocate general or the reasoning.

In 90% of the time, it is followed. Therefore an Opinion from an Advocate sort of gives you an indication of where the judgement is heading.

I must say, i know of free free movement cases where the judges did not follow the advocate general.

In Jia, the court didn't, in Akrich, the reasoning was followed but not the actual conclusion.

[chaoclive]

Do people think that bank accounts may be included in the test for permanent removal to another member state?

Surely that would be too much! People who have long term bonds/ISAs etc would be at a great disadvantage!

This is beginning to sound crazy...I'm not even sure that I want to go back to a country like the UK at the moment...might be better to move to mainland Europe after all. I've never felt so isolated or alienated from my own country of birth. I'm disgusted!

[jinkazama_11]

Do people think that bank accounts may be included in the test for permanent removal to another member state?

Surely that would be too much! People who have long term bonds/ISAs etc would be at a great disadvantage!

This is beginning to sound crazy...I'm not even sure that I want to go back to a country like the UK at the moment...might be better to move to mainland Europe after all. I've never felt so isolated or alienated from my own country of birth. I'm disgusted!

Same here mate, you are not the only one feeling that way.
In answer to your questions HO will examine everything, they need a excuse to refuse the application.

[jinkazama_11]

My question is
If my mother gets residence card in Ireland how easy it would be for us to move to another EU country. I am thinking to move to Switzerland/Germany/Scandinavian countries. Do I have to prove again in that member state that she is dependent on me.
It seems using SS will be much harder, going to courts will take awful lot of time.

[chaoclive]

I'm sure you will have to prove dependence on you no matter where you decide to stay.

It might actually be quicker staying in another EU country, instead of SS (if you can get a good enough job), as you wouldn't need to wait for the SS application to be approved and, according to the new rules, possibly rejected!

The stuff about a bank account is SOOOOOO stupid. I've lived in China for 7 years and used my UK bank account as and when required. Why couldn't I do the same in Europe? I would love to have the money to take this to court (if it is an issue), but I don't think that's realistic Being poor really is really an a*s!