EU Commission takes the UK to court

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Oh my word, they have finally admitted that they will lose an ECJ case!

The UK has lost a number of ECJ cases. See Singh as a classic. And Carpenter! Nothing new

[DFDS.]

Some good news for people residing under EU law in the UK:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct ... anguage=en

Thats a step fored!

[docteurbenway]

Oh my word, they have finally admitted that they will lose an ECJ case!

The UK has lost a number of ECJ cases. See Singh as a classic. And Carpenter! Nothing new

So what do you think, whats the realistic timeline for this thing?

[mEEA]

Oh my word, they have finally admitted that they will lose an ECJ case!

The UK has lost a number of ECJ cases. See Singh as a classic. And Carpenter! Nothing new

So what do you think, whats the realistic timeline for this thing?

Let me understand: you think that Home Office will change their understanding of EU laws? Why would that be?

[docteurbenway]

Let me understand: you think that Home Office will change their understanding of EU laws? Why would that be?

They will lose the ECJ case and would be forced to make the changes, it is just a matter of time

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

I have a little more information.

Apparently the EC sent a "Formal Notice" regarding 16 points to the UK. The UK had 2 months to reply, and in that time addressed 12 of the points. So now the UK has sent a "Reasoned Opinion" about the remaining 4 points. The UK now has 2 months to respond.

So depending on what the 12 points were that were addressed (or the EC was convinced of the UK position), there has already been some progress made.

[docteurbenway]

I have a little more information.

Apparently the EC sent a "Formal Notice" regarding 16 points to the UK. The UK had 2 months to reply, and in that time addressed 12 of the points. So now the UK has sent a "Reasoned Opinion" about the remaining 4 points. The UK now has 2 months to respond.

So depending on what the 12 points were that were addressed (or the EC was convinced of the UK position), there has already been some progress made.

Cool i did not know that, but i think the EC will not be convinced with the UKs position of not accepting EU Family Cards.

After all the EC lists this point at the very top of the 4 points in question as being at the heart of the free movement directive.

The question now is how fast are they going to comply. And also if they had 2 months and were able to apply 12 out of the 16 initial points, why is the UK press and government making such a fuss saying that they will not be able to make it on time?

When Ireland had to apply the changes all it took was one page statutory instrument.

[mEEA]

... why is the UK press and government making such a fuss saying that they will not be able to make it on time? ...

Olympics might be an "excuse".

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

... why is the UK press and government making such a fuss saying that they will not be able to make it on time?.

Apart from one badly written Telegraph article who quoted unnamed sources, I didn't notice a fuss in the media.

[docteurbenway]

... why is the UK press and government making such a fuss saying that they will not be able to make it on time?.

Apart from one badly written Telegraph article who quoted unnamed sources, I didn't notice a fuss in the media.

Here is another article from the Financial Times with better sources (note since the article is only accessible to registered users i am going to post it here in its entirety):

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31fb56f8-8fca ... z1tgnfwhnV

April 26, 2012 11:35 pm
Britain falls foul of Brussels over immigration
By Alex Barker in Brussels

Brussels is threatening to sue the UK unless it removes illegal curbs on the rights of EU citizens to use the National Health Service and bring their non-EU family members to Britain without a visa.
The European Commission’s ultimatum gives ministers two months to comply with the EU rules or face court, setting the stage for a legal battle with Britain over several highly charged immigration issues.

On Thursday night Theresa May, home secretary, vowed to fight the Brussels ruling so that ministers can protect rules designed to stop the “abuse” of an EU directive that underpins the single market for labour.
Talks over Britain’s allegedly lax implementation of the “free movement directive” have stretched over two years and the vast majority of about 80 alleged breaches are now resolved.
However, there remains a stand-off over four issues that undercut much of the coalition’s rhetoric on tightening border controls and clamping down on non-EU immigration.
The most controversial issue relates to the right of EU citizens to settle visa-free with their close family members in Britain, even when their spouse or dependants does not have an EU passport.
British officials apply stricter requirements and insist on visa applications because they are not convinced resident cards from other EU countries are secure.
Brussels is also calling for controls to be relaxed to allow extended family members of EU citizens to apply for residence in the UK, even when their EU family member lives outside Britain. This would entitle, for instance, an Afghan national in London to apply for residence in Britain on the basis of their Italian brother living in Rome.
Other rules stopping Bulgarian and Romanian workers from being issued with the same residence documents as workers from other EU states are also being challenged as illegal.
“While EU law allows the UK to temporarily keep in place a work permit scheme for workers from Bulgaria and Romania, those who have a work permit have the same right to reside as other EU workers,” the commission said.
The Home Office said: “We disagree with the commission’s opinion, which is not binding, and we will appeal. As the home secretary has said . . . we will not tolerate abuse of the free movement directive.”
A fourth demand is for Britain to drop an allegedly unlawful restriction stopping unemployed EU citizens who want to reside in Britain from claiming the NHS as their “sickness insurance”. Such insurance is a condition to reside in the UK.
Officials argue that the NHS cannot be seen as an insurance policy to anyone in the EU and that the controls are essential to ensuring economically inactive EU citizens do not place an undue burden on the state.
“The UK is home to around 2m citizens from other EU countries,” the commission said. “It is therefore important that UK laws respect their rights.” Britain could be fined if it loses the case in court.
British ministers are already in a legal battle with Brussels over rules that stop some EU citizens from claiming benefits in Britain that the commission says they are entitled to.
Officials agreed to make dozens of tweaks to UK immigration rules to comply with the free movement directive. These include making clear that non-EU parents of EU children can still work in the EU automatically and removing charges for issuing some residence cards.
---------------------------
Same rhetoric here, everyone is an evil immigrant trying to leach beautiful British benefits.

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Brussels is also calling for controls to be relaxed to allow extended family members of EU citizens to apply for residence in the UK, even when their EU family member lives outside Britain. This would entitle, for instance, an Afghan national in London to apply for residence in Britain on the basis of their Italian brother living in Rome.

Who makes this stuff up? The FT should be ashamed of publishing this drivel

[Jambo]

British officials apply stricter requirements and insist on visa applications because they are not convinced resident cards from other EU countries are secure.

I don't think this is actually the UKBA argument.

However, made me smile considering the HO can issue RC on a piece of paper. Comparing to the Italian or French ID card (which looks as if it was by a school boy in his garage), they seem like Fort Knox to me.

[ca.funke]

British officials apply stricter requirements and insist on visa applications because they are not convinced resident cards from other EU countries are secure...

If you browse the news in the last few months or so you will see the sheer level of inefficiency that the UKBA has showed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/1 ... sfeed=true

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ports.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04 ... 44707.html

This is so cool: Where the UK complains about other countries (insecure visa stickers...), they themselves do it worse (RCs on A4 paper etc...).

They can´t seem to handle their own borders, but are "happy not to be in Schengen"...

Really, there is clearly no strategy on how to properly protect the UK´s border.

Considering all this, maybe "Schengen" should be happy that the UK is not a member of Schengen (and not the other way around) ...

[ca.funke]

Plans are in place to deal with the expected increase in travellers coming into the UK for this summer's London Olympics, said the spokesman.

This could include retired border staff returning to work for the period and trained staff being brought in from other parts of the UK Border Agency or Government departments such as the Home Office and HM Revenue & Customs.

A real strategy to combat many of the self-made problems could be this:

Offer to join Schengen, but only under certain conditions:

1. Retain the right to conduct passport-checks at all times, if deemed necessary.
   • This could -exclusively for the islands of Great Britain and Ireland- solve the problem of expulsed people returning.
2. Clarify and Amend Chapter VI of 2004/38/EC (Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health) to serve the following ends:
   • Even EU-citizens (and their family members) should be expulsed, if they commit certain crimes
3. Follow the ideas >>here<<, which would unify visa procedures

Like this, visas and RCs of other Schengen-countries would be acceptable for visit only, freeing lots of staff throughout the EU who are currently processing visa-applications.

The freed staff could be used to investigate benefit-fraud and other serious matters, not wasting their time for (mostly) meaningless visas.

At the same time Britain could verify entrants (allowed exclusively because they are an Island, not waiving this strategic advantage), enforcing any previous expulsions.

This makes so much sense that it will definitely never become a reality.

[mEEA]

I am not a fan of Telegraph but this is interesting. It looks to me that HO are on the idea that more controls, regardless of their quality questioned in some previous posts, is the best control mechanism.

[ca.funke]

...this is interesting...

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on Thursday joined Germany, France, Austria, Holland, Belgium and Sweden (all in Schengen) to demand EU intervention to plug a hole that is allowing illegal immigration via Greece into the rest of Europe.

A joint paper agreed by the seven countries urges Greece to "live up to its responsibilities" and "keep its house in order" by securing the Greek border with Turkey, which is also the frontier of the EU's free movement Schengen zone. (the 6 mentioned countries demand this because they are Schengen-countries, and thus affected. The UK is not Schengen, thus not affected, and should -thus- shut up.)

"We believe our combined efforts will help ensure that the EU is taking practical steps to combat illegal immigration, and help reduce the numbers travelling unlawfully to the UK," said a British diplomat. (What does Britain have to do with this? They´re not part of Schengen, and thus still guarding their border independently. If their own checks don´t seem to work, how can increased checks between Turkey and Greece help Britain?)

Passport-free travel within Europe, outside Britain and Ireland, is regarded as a major achievement but what applies to European travellers also applies to illegal immigrants allowing them entry to any EU country without showing identity papers. (Plain wrong. "any EU country" has to be replaced with "any Schengen-country", thus showing that this is a Schengen problem, not an EU-problem as such, and in specific not a UK-problem.)

British officials have identified evidence that the loophole has led to a sharp increase in attempted asylum shopping and the abuse of sham marriages as Pakistani and Afghan illegal immigrants take advantage of the EU's open borders policy to head to Britain from Greece. (In absence of Schengen in Britain, these "officials" would just have to outline how anyone can "take advantage of the EU's open borders policy" in order to get to Britain...)

The "loophole" they describe is not a "loophole" the UK could suffer from, and the Telegraph is a mouthpiece of the Tories, describing everything as if it was the EU´s fault, even when it´s not.

Quite unbelievable...

[docteurbenway]

Typical British/Tory attitude, first to criticize everything about the EU especially stuff that has nothing to do with them at all like the Euro or Schengen for the sake of fearmongering and political gains. They have never offered any solutions by the way.

Meanwhile the UKBA mismanagement disaster spreads across the channel:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trave ... minal.html

[mEEA]

ca.funke, you had a nice analysis!

I think that people in HO misrepresent information the same way Telegraph does. I was checking the profile of HO secretary (Theresa May) on wikipedia and found the following:

... At the Conservative Party Conference on 4 October 2011, while arguing that the Human Rights Act needed to be amended, May gave the example of a foreign national who the courts deemed was allowed to remain in the UK, "because - and I am not making this up - he had a pet cat". In response, the Royal Courts of Justice issued a statement, denying that this was the reason for the tribunal's decision in that case, and instead stated that the real reason was that he was in a genuine relationship with a British partner, and owning a pet cat was simply one of many pieces of evidence given to show that the relationship was "genuine". The Home Office had failed to apply its own rules for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, subsequently called May's comments "laughable and childlike..."

The source is here.

[docteurbenway]

And to put the cherry on the cake with the UKBA mismanagement disaster:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/0 ... sfeed=true

[ca.funke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVzBYe6iQN8

no substance, only verbiage... without words...

[docteurbenway]

ca.funke, you had a nice analysis!

I think that people in HO misrepresent information the same way Telegraph does.

The only difference between the two is that if the Telegraph misrepresent information, you stop reading it and throw the paper in the garbage bin, but if the HO and Theresa May misrepresents information and passes laws according to this false interpretation the results are catastrophic.

By misinterpreting EU laws the HO is directly threatening the freedom, dignity and in some cases the livelihood of millions of people.

[mEEA]

Take a look here. I don't mean to prove that HO is bad.

[docteurbenway]

Take a look here. I don't mean to prove that HO is bad.

Two quotes:

"The act enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

But Theresa May told the Sunday Telegraph she "personally" would like to see it go because of the problems it caused for the Home Office."


Human rights organisation Liberty did not welcome the government's stance.

Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Modern Conservatives should think again about human rights values that were truly Churchill's legacy.

"Only a pretty 'nasty party' would promote human rights in the Middle East whilst scrapping them at home."

The same way she would personally like Directive 2004/38/EC go.

[mEEA]

... The same way she would personally like Directive 2004/38/EC go.

Do you think that HO is so powerful? I think they have done bad enough to loose support. Look at this and this. The issues that they might bring once confronting EC should be of difference nature. I have seen many cases in this forum where economic situation of the UK has been put forward to rationalize a rejection. I think reasons like this would be pushed ahead to reason any future decision for example to set quotas for Romanians/Bulgarians or the like.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

British officials apply stricter requirements and insist on visa applications because they are not convinced resident cards from other EU countries are secure.

I don't think this is actually the UKBA argument.

However, made me smile considering the HO can issue RC on a piece of paper. Comparing to the Italian or French ID card (which looks as if it was by a school boy in his garage), they seem like Fort Knox to me.

I wonder is the lack of security concern anything to do with cards being in a nasty foreign language.