- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, Zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, Administrator
SPAM!fortunitos wrote:watch free rubbish here: http://bit.lxxy/bqaxxxTMo
Martin, sorry I think I overlooked your post.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?
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.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.
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.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.
That's certainly way over the top and for many simply unrealistic. Rentals are typically always time limited.MSH wrote:[...] NATIONAL DANISH requirements of owning their own home or leasing apartments on special leases with no end-limit like I listed.
Any references? I am not sure how that might enable coverage under the Singh ruling...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.
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.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Any references? I am not sure how that might enable coverage under the Singh ruling...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.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this..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.
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: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.'
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".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.
Genuine and effective ~ and with rnumeration no less!!!86ti wrote: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: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.'
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".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.
What exactly do you do?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?
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.86ti wrote:Here is a case with some more hints in the discussion.
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.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
Hi Directive, I opened a new thread for itDirective/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?