Immigrationboards.com

5th of October 2012, the Council of State of the Netherlands referred four questions for a preliminary ruling from the Court related to the so-called "Europe route".

1.Should the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 apply analogously as in Eind and Singh when a national of a Member State returns after receiving services in another Member State in the sense of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


2.If so, is a minimum period of residence required in the other Member State?

3.If so, does this still apply when the residence was intermittent, for example at weekends?

4.In these circumstances, does a delay between the national's return to his Member State and the entry of a non-EU national who is a family member into the Member State potentially mean that the family member's rights have expired?

How is it to be restrictively interpreted?

Best to supply links with quotes

Below are the order of Reference for preliminary ruling.

S

O

What i dont understand is the OP interpretation that this indicates a restrictive interpretation of Eind and Singh.

frei wrote:1.Should the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 apply analogously as in Eind and Singh when a national of a Member State returns after receiving services in another Member State in the sense of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

This question seems to focus on services, something which was not part of the decisions in Eind and Singh.

Instead of being restrictive, I have the sense that the question is instead about an expansive interpretation.

What I meant was if the court did rule in favour of member states in question 2, that is to to set a minimum period of time, and also question 3 and 4.

I have an email from the European office of the UKBA in Liverpool which was explicit, that there isn't a set period of residence required when applying under Singh. The implementation is so broad and significant.

If the court do set a limit, of course that would lead to amendment of implementation which would be limited.

As pointed by directive, if this would only apply to people providing services, that might not affect the majority as there doesn't seems to me to be much people who fall in this category.

I found it on wiki, it is dissimilar to the case I was reading on the wiki just found it at the bottom of the page.

Presently Singh is limited to people who have worked.

So any possible extension to people who have received services is a huge expansion. That would include people who have camped at a wonderful low cost camp ground for a few months.

I have pointed the two cases.

Well if these cases succeeds,it may broaden the scope of Eind and Singh, if it fails, it make no difference.

These are cases involving people who lives in Holland and provides or receives service in another member states, and frontier workers.

In my view, i dont believe it will affect Eind or Singh. It will be interesting to see what the court thinks.

frei wrote:What I meant was if the court did rule in favour of member states in question 2, that is to to set a minimum period of time, and also question 3 and 4.

I have an email from the European office of the UKBA in Liverpool which was explicit, that there isn't a set period of residence required when applying under Singh. The implementation is so broad and significant.

If the court do set a limit, of course that would lead to amendment of implementation which would be limited.

As pointed by directive, if this would only apply to people providing services, that might not affect the majority as there doesn't seems to me to be much people who fall in this category.

I found it on wiki, it is dissimilar to the case I was reading on the wiki just found it at the bottom of the page.

hi frei,would u share that email with us please,if its ok with u ,it might help some here in that forum who are looking to use either the singh or eind case..thanks in advance.

ukforever wrote:

frei wrote:What I meant was if the court did rule in favour of member states in question 2, that is to to set a minimum period of time, and also question 3 and 4.

I have an email from the European office of the UKBA in Liverpool which was explicit, that there isn't a set period of residence required when applying under Singh. The implementation is so broad and significant.

If the court do set a limit, of course that would lead to amendment of implementation which would be limited.

As pointed by directive, if this would only apply to people providing services, that might not affect the majority as there doesn't seems to me to be much people who fall in this category.

I found it on wiki, it is dissimilar to the case I was reading on the wiki just found it at the bottom of the page.

hi frei,would u share that email with us please,if its ok with u ,it might help some here in that forum who are looking to use either the singh or eind case..thanks in advance.

Dear xxxxxxxxx,



Thank you for your email dated 20 April regarding the requirements for British citizens who wish to sponsor their non-EEA national family members to come to the UK under regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (‘Surinder Singh cases’).



Regulation 9 does not set a specific period for which a person must have exercised free movement rights as a worker in another EEA member state in order to engage the provisions in that regulation. However, the work involved must not be on a ‘transient or casual basis’.



All applications are considered on a case-by-case basis and it is not possible to give assurances regarding an individual application which may be submitted in the future. Persons submitting an application for a document confirming a right of admission or residence under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (as amended) should ensure that all relevant evidence and documentation is submitted with their application.



I trust that this information is helpful to you.



Yours sincerely,


European Operational Policy Team

UK Border Agency