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

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Directive 2004/38/EC thread

Immigration to European countries, don't post UK or Ireland related topics!

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

Post Reply
Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:42 pm

If you are British and are working in France or are self sufficient, then your husband can get a Residence Card. Does not matter if you have been there for a long time, or only a few weeks.

fortunitos
Newly Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:14 pm

cv

Post by fortunitos » Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:06 pm

watch free rubbish here: http://bit.ly/bqaTMo

Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Re: cv

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:22 pm

fortunitos wrote:watch free rubbish here: http://bit.lxxy/bqaxxxTMo
SPAM!
Last edited by Directive/2004/38/EC on Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MSH
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:48 pm

Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC

Post by MSH » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:19 pm

http://eumovement.wordpress.com/2007/06 ... -question/

According to Directive 2004/38/EC, if an EU citizen along with his non-EU spouse takes up residence in an EU member state OTHER than the one the EU citizen is a national of, he and his spouse can return to his own country, claiming to have exercised his right to free movement, thus enabling the spouse to obtain permanent residency.

If the information in the above link is correct, then the LENGTH of time the couple have resided in the other member state is irrelevant???

The Danish Ministry for Foreigners currently claim that a number of requirements have to be met by Danish citizens returning from other EU states with their non-EU spouses/partners, some of which are:

-The couple have to have either bought a house/apartment or have rented one for an indefinite time period in the other EU member state (renting a room with friends or family is NOT acceptable)

-The couple shall have stayed in the other EU state for a non-specified length of time (the Danish authorities will not divulge which criteria is used in determining if the length of stay in the other EU state is sufficient to be considered a so-called 'de facto' move)

How can this be in compliance with the Directive?

If I move to another EU member state with my non-EU spouse and we can prove we have been residing in the other state through documentation from the other state's central registry of persons, have I then not exercised my right to free movement (provided I have sufficient funds for our stay there) and is my spouse then not entitled to reside with me in my own country?

I don't understand how the Danish authorities are allowed to put conditions up for it's citizens in order for them to gain access to their rights as EU-citizens? How can a case against Denmark be brought before the European Court?

Regards,

Martin.

Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:42 pm

MSH wrote:http://eumovement.wordpress.com/2007/06 ... -question/

According to Directive 2004/38/EC, if an EU citizen along with his non-EU spouse takes up residence in an EU member state OTHER than the one the EU citizen is a national of, he and his spouse can return to his own country, claiming to have exercised his right to free movement, thus enabling the spouse to obtain permanent residency.

If the information in the above link is correct, then the LENGTH of time the couple have resided in the other member state is irrelevant???

The Danish Ministry for Foreigners currently claim that a number of requirements have to be met by Danish citizens returning from other EU states with their non-EU spouses/partners, some of which are:

-The couple have to have either bought a house/apartment or have rented one for an indefinite time period in the other EU member state (renting a room with friends or family is NOT acceptable)

-The couple shall have stayed in the other EU state for a non-specified length of time (the Danish authorities will not divulge which criteria is used in determining if the length of stay in the other EU state is sufficient to be considered a so-called 'de facto' move)

How can this be in compliance with the Directive?

If I move to another EU member state with my non-EU spouse and we can prove we have been residing in the other state through documentation from the other state's central registry of persons, have I then not exercised my right to free movement (provided I have sufficient funds for our stay there) and is my spouse then not entitled to reside with me in my own country?
Martin, sorry I think I overlooked your post.

You are confusing two things.

You reside in another member state whenever you visit. That is fine, but not very material any more.

If you want to use EU law to bring your spouse to your home country, then you need to be aware of the Surinder Singh ( http://eumovement.wordpress.com/2007/04 ... ional-law/ ) ruling. The key thing is that you were doing real work in another EU country and that you plan to do real work in your home EU country.

Your home EU country can not require you to have a lease. That is just stupid. And they can not require you to have worked for a specific period of time. But I would be surprised if they have a problem with you working for 6 months in another country and then coming home.

MSH
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by MSH » Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:49 pm

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:
Martin, sorry I think I overlooked your post.

You are confusing two things.

You reside in another member state whenever you visit. That is fine, but not very material any more.

If you want to use EU law to bring your spouse to your home country, then you need to be aware of the Surinder Singh ( http://eumovement.wordpress.com/2007/04 ... ional-law/ ) ruling. The key thing is that you were doing real work in another EU country and that you plan to do real work in your home EU country.

Your home EU country can not require you to have a lease. That is just stupid. And they can not require you to have worked for a specific period of time. But I would be surprised if they have a problem with you working for 6 months in another country and then coming home.
No, here in Denmark, whether or not I have RESIDED in another member state is actually highly relevant. The Danish authorities currently maintain that a Danish citizen is only covered by community law and the benefits of directive 2004/38 if he has LIVED IN, as in moved to, set up household, opened bank accounts and aquired home insurance etc. etc. in another member state.

This is completely without legal basis in any part of the directive or established case law of the ECJ.

furthermore, Denmark routinely EXPELS or REFUSE residence to third country spouses of Danish citizens who can demonstrate to have exercised their right to free movement as required by the directive, but have failed to meet the added NATIONAL DANISH requirements of owning their own home or leasing apartments on special leases with no end-limit like I listed.

As you probably know, the directive expressly forbid member states to expel spouses or EU citizens unless on serious grounds of public security and the ECJ granted Mary Carpenter right of residence in the UK exactly because the British government violated art. 8 on respect for family life of the European Human Rights Convention.

Denmark also refuse right of residence to spouses of people who have worked in another member state for less than 8 weeks. Again, NOT legal.

The list of very serious breaches of community law here in Denmark is long and mind-bogglingly exhaustive.

I understand I can just uproot my life and go live in another EU member state but since my government have no LEGAL basis for forcing me out of my own country I have decided that I don't really feel like leaving.

I'm staying and I will fight them every inch of the way.

MSH.

Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:15 pm

MSH wrote:Denmark also refuse right of residence to spouses of people who have worked in another member state for less than 8 weeks. Again, NOT legal.
EU law does not apply in your own country unless you have worked in another country and then are moving back. Visiting/residing in another country briefly does not count.

But working in another country does count. It is not clear what the cutoff is. Is one day of work in Germany enough to let you use the ECJ ruling in Singh? Probably not? Nor is one hour of work in the UK. But 6 months of work is probably enough.

If you read the Singh ruling, you see it does not set a particular limit. It just says that you have to be working in another EU country and plan to come back to your home state and work.

8 weeks seems very low to me.

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Post by 86ti » Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:31 am

Just to clarify: one does not necessarily have to physically relocate to another member state. Cross-border working or providing services to some other member state may be sufficient too.

There is no clear cut time after which EU law would become effective. If I remember correctly someone here once mentioned a case where 10 weeks were considered sufficient by the ECJ. It all boils down to the circumstances of an individual case as it is typical for EU law.
MSH wrote:[...] NATIONAL DANISH requirements of owning their own home or leasing apartments on special leases with no end-limit like I listed.
That's certainly way over the top and for many simply unrealistic. Rentals are typically always time limited.

Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:10 am

86ti wrote:Just to clarify: one does not necessarily have to physically relocate to another member state. Cross-border working or providing services to some other member state may be sufficient too.
Any references? I am not sure how that might enable coverage under the Singh ruling...

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Post by 86ti » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:40 am

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:
86ti wrote:Just to clarify: one does not necessarily have to physically relocate to another member state. Cross-border working or providing services to some other member state may be sufficient too.
Any references? I am not sure how that might enable coverage under the Singh ruling...
The whole story did not just end with a case nearly twenty years ago (although one might get the impression that it did for the UK. A relevant case for returnees is the Eind case from 2007.) Providing services has been delt with in the Carpenter case. Incidentially, another case lost by the UK.

MSH
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by MSH » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:42 pm

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: EU law does not apply in your own country unless you have worked in another country and then are moving back. Visiting/residing in another country briefly does not count.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this..

EU law applies to all citizens of the EU. This is stated explicitly in the Lisbon treaty, art. 9:

"In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it."

Clear cut language.

'Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.'

Now, what section or article of directive 2004/38 is it PRECISELY that you feel stipulates WORK in another member state for the benefits of the directive to come into effect for a EU citizen?

In art. 3 the wording is:

"Beneficiaries
1. This Directive shall apply to all Union citizens who move
to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they
are a national, and to their family members as defined in point
2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them."

'Move to' is clearly distinct from 'reside in', yes?

No mention of work whatsoever, btw.

I feel very strongly that anybody who has ever physically been in a member state other than that of his own is covered by the provisions of directive 2004/38, even as tourists.

The requirement that they have to set up household or purchase real estate and live in the other member state for 6 months or more is ridiculous and without basis in either the directive or EU's fundamental rights.

MSH.

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by 86ti » Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:24 pm

MSH wrote:EU law applies to all citizens of the EU. This is stated explicitly in the Lisbon treaty, art. 9:

"In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it."

Clear cut language.

'Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.'
Yes, sure but that has been already established in the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and expanded on in 1997 by the Amsterdam Treaty. The crucial question would be how to interpret this 'equality' that is mentioned in the TFEU. I wonder if the Zambrano case goes in this direction.

MSH wrote:I feel very strongly that anybody who has ever physically been in a member state other than that of his own is covered by the provisions of directive 2004/38, even as tourists.
There are ECJ cases that deal with such questions. Unfortunately, I do not have a reference but a key phrase, I believe, was "genuine and effective".

MelC
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: North Africa/EU/UK

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by MelC » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:25 pm

86ti wrote:
MSH wrote:EU law applies to all citizens of the EU. This is stated explicitly in the Lisbon treaty, art. 9:

"In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it."

Clear cut language.

'Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.'
Yes, sure but that has been already established in the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and expanded on in 1997 by the Amsterdam Treaty. The crucial question would be how to interpret this 'equality' that is mentioned in the TFEU. I wonder if the Zambrano case goes in this direction.

MSH wrote:I feel very strongly that anybody who has ever physically been in a member state other than that of his own is covered by the provisions of directive 2004/38, even as tourists.
There are ECJ cases that deal with such questions. Unfortunately, I do not have a reference but a key phrase, I believe, was "genuine and effective".
Genuine and effective ~ and with rnumeration no less!!!

a very annoying stumbling block for me!

my work is very genuine, and can be proven, it is also effective, just at this time it brings no renumeration!

case law thoughts anyone?
MelC

Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Re: Legality of Denmark's interpretation of Directive 2004/3

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:41 pm

MelC wrote:my work is very genuine, and can be proven, it is also effective, just at this time it brings no renumeration!

case law thoughts anyone?
What exactly do you do?

86ti
Diamond Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:07 am

Post by 86ti » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:26 am

Here is a case with some more hints in the discussion.

MelC
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: North Africa/EU/UK

Post by MelC » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:37 pm

86ti wrote:Here is a case with some more hints in the discussion.
thanks for that, I have found a few snippets here and there, and am businly trying to decipher them into a language I can understand.
MelC

acme4242
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:03 pm

Post by acme4242 » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:33 am

raw links to the 2004/38/EC compliance studies across the EU-27, (PDF reports from 2008, missing EEA Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein)


summary
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... ort_en.pdf

individual compliance studies across EU-27
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... udy_en.pdf

raw links to transposition table,
These tables details the transposition of 2004/38/EC across each of the EU-27
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/ ... nce_en.pdf

Backup all docs to posterous.com
http://200438eccompliance.posterous.com ... 8ec-across

moroni
Newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:02 pm

Post by moroni » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:11 pm

Not sure where to post it... anyway I do not think it worth a new topic
European Commission threatens legal action against Czech Republic due to restrictions on free movement



The European Commission on Thursday threatened to take legal steps against the Czech Republic due to the restrictions it poses on the free movement of EU citizens. According to the commission, a current policy under which foreign EU nationals have to present a confirmation of accommodation to Czech authorities in order to establish temporary residence in the country is against the EU directive on free movement. Member states were ordered to implement this directive by April 2006. The Czech Republic has been given a two-month time frame to respond to the European Commission. Should it find the response unsatisfactory, the commission may take the case to the EU’s court, which could result in sanctions being posed on the Czech Republic.
Source: radio.cz

Directive/2004/38/EC
Respected Guru
Posts: 7121
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 am
Location: does not matter if you are with your EEA family member

Post by Directive/2004/38/EC » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:59 pm

moroni wrote:Not sure where to post it... anyway I do not think it worth a new topic
European Commission threatens legal action against Czech Republic due to restrictions on free movement



The European Commission on Thursday threatened to take legal steps against the Czech Republic due to the restrictions it poses on the free movement of EU citizens. According to the commission, a current policy under which foreign EU nationals have to present a confirmation of accommodation to Czech authorities in order to establish temporary residence in the country is against the EU directive on free movement. Member states were ordered to implement this directive by April 2006. The Czech Republic has been given a two-month time frame to respond to the European Commission. Should it find the response unsatisfactory, the commission may take the case to the EU’s court, which could result in sanctions being posed on the Czech Republic.
Source: radio.cz
Its own thread would be fine. This should also apply to Irish authoritiies, who do the same thing.

Do you have an original source for the information? A URL?

moroni
Newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:02 pm

Post by moroni » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:11 am

Directive/2004/38/EC wrote: Its own thread would be fine. This should also apply to Irish authoritiies, who do the same thing.

Do you have an original source for the information? A URL?
Hi Directive, I opened a new thread for it

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=94549

Post Reply