Obie wrote:The problem is that UK and Ireland show little or no regards for durable partners, in breach of EU law. They both stick to their 2 years evidence of relationship, without doing what the directive required, which is an extensive examination of the personal circumstance of the applicant and the EEA national. Up until the court of appeal reason for granting permission in the case of FD, the UK was refusing people who meet the 2 years rule on the basis of overstayin and illegal entry, in breach of EU LAW. Now things have improved slightly for these categories of beneficiary, even though the secretary of state still retain enormous powers of discretion.
In Ireland, the only good thing is that once these people meet the requirements, they are considered permitted family members, and can only be refused residency on grounds of public policy, public health or public security. However the minister has refused to undertake the full examination provided for in the directive and their national law that transposes it. This issue will need to be referred to the European court of justice
The problem, in Ireland, was, until recently, that Irish law only recognised family based on marriage. This has, of course, being dilluted since a number of ECtHR cases and matters involving unmarried fathers. So it is not neccessarily a case of ignoring the EU version of family. Moreover, the directive makes it clear that the provision in relation to de facto relations only applies where the Member State recognises same. Now, of course, Ireland has in the last will recognised these type of relationship as per the website. In addition, new legislation is now in place. For those who can provide EVIDENTARY DOCUMENTATION for a period of time, then they should be alright
Didn't the EU Commission bring out a guideline (which is non binding)? It acknowledges the right of Member States to determine the required period, but sets out examples of when the Minister(s) should consider waiving the X year rule eg if there are children, joint financial committments etc. Doesn't Belgium have a similar 2-3 year rule? Anyone aware of any other countries you do similar?
The problem I see, is that it potentially ruins GENUINE COUPLES who DO intend or are ENGAGED to marry, as it, as per Metock, ruins the EU citizen's potential right to free movement with their future spouse. THe more worring aspect is the fact that the department refuses to re-consider by appeal, thus, for strong cases, leads to more state expenses via court, and a pronounced judgment which may not go the way the Minister wants
Surely, an extensive examination requirement for proofs of residency is the only way? It is not enough to be boyfriend-girlfriend or boyfriend-boyfriend or girlfriend-girlfriend - it is a durable relationship akin to living like husband and wife. If there is no marriage and no children, isn't possible to pretend to be in a relationship, even if they live together? Any genuine couple would have no problem and little difficulty is evidencing this
But, then, you could argue, that the period requirement is discriminatory towards de facto relationship as there is no requirement for married couples and married couples, even if they know and marry each other within 6 months get status.
The couple should never have made an application on basis of relationship and should have kept the head down and wait until they got married
