137 Pages EEA application form, what for exactly

[Choi Saab]

Also, is the form itself lawful if it forces the applicant to give information that is irrelevant?

Please also advise about skipping non relevant sections in the form as mentioned earlier.

Any and all input welcome and highly appreciated.

Thank you secret.simon for your input. I have decided to use the form now. Please guide on the above points also.

[tmonaghan]

Stop saying EU Migrants; they are EU Citizens and have the right to reside in the UK as much as any British Citizens. NON-EEA Citizens are migrants within the EU.

[noajthan]

Stop saying EU Migrants; they are EU Citizens and have the right to reside in the UK as much as any British Citizens. NON-EEA Citizens are migrants within the EU.

Unclear what the connection is to the PR form but ...

... migrant can be understood as "any person who lives temporarily or permanently in a country where he or she was not born, and has acquired some significant social ties to this country."
However, this may be a too narrow definition when considering that, according to some states' policies, a person can be considered as a migrant even when s/he is born in the country.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and ... y/migrant/

[vinny]

Can the Home Office force EU nationals to use the official 85 page permanent residence application form?

[secret.simon]

Another similar thread.

[Obie]

I am not sure the position of Secret Simon.

Is he saying that upon application means an 85 or 91 pages application needs to be filled. If that is his position, then it is clearly not correct.

EU law does not make any demand for an application to be made on a particular form, nor does it provide for memberstate to refuse an application as invalid because a particular form has not been used.

It is funny how our understanding of law is so at variance with each other.

[secret.simon]

EU law does not make any demand for an application to be made on a particular form, nor does it provide for memberstate to refuse an application as invalid because a particular form has not been used.

Nor does it preclude the possibility of a memberstate requiring a specified form to be used.

Legislative silence can be interpreted in many ways.

[Obie]

Article 10 of the Directive is in no uncertain term.

It specifically provides for the documents that need to be provided for the residence card to be issued.

Part of that requirement is not that a person shall complete a 91 pages form demanded by the Host Member state.

Even if your point was valid, i will still argue, that under EU law there is a principle which stipulate that if there are 2 or more interpretation of an EU law provision, it is the one which ensures that the Effectiveness of EU law is maintained that must be followed.

That providing a 91 pages application hinders people from applying for the Residence card and imposes administrative burden, such that the requirement is an obstacle to the right holder exercising their right to the Card.

In any event, i do not need to rely on purposive reading, as it is clear the provision is unlawful.

[secret.simon]

Look at the difference between Articles 8(3) and 10. The former specifically lists that only the listed documents are required.

In the absence of any words listing the extent, Article 10 could be interpreted as listing the minimum documentary requirements, not the maximum.

Similarly, Articles 19 & 20 do not have any wording that limits what documentation can be requested.

under EU law there is a principle which stipulate that if there are 2 or more interpretation of an EU law provision, it is the one which ensures that the Effectiveness of EU law is maintained that must be followed.

The effectiveness of EU law is in no ways hampered by the size of an application form. EU law grants PR automatically. But it leaves it to the member state to verify and issue the documentation. The member state has the freedom to specify the documentary requirement for the application for the member state to issue a document itself.

it is clear the provision is unlawful.

On these forums, of course, we will take your word for it. No further proof required.

[Obie]

Well it will be absurd that EU law can make Article 10 a provision that is Otiose. In Rahman it was settled that the memberstate can do so in regards to extended family, but not family members.

(14) The supporting documents required by the competent authorities for the issuing of a
registration certificate or of a residence card should be comprehensively specified in order to
avoid divergent administrative practices or interpretations constituting an undue obstacle to
the exercise of the right of residence by Union citizens and their family members.

Article 10 follows partly from Recital 14. And from Recital 14, you see the community legislature is seeking to have a system in place to avoid divergent administrative practice in the memberstate that hinders a person's treaty rights.

[secret.simon]

Recital 14 talks very specifically about Residence Certificates and Residence Cards. It standardises the documentary requirements for the former very specifically and, in the absence of limits, states a minimum requirement for the latter.

Neither Recital 14, nor any other Recital nor Article 8(3) nor Article 10 apply to the issue discussed in this thread, which is whether a member state has the right to mandate a specific form for issuance of documentation under Articles 19 & 20. There is nothing in the Directive nor any case law that I can find that suggests that mandating the use of a specific form for those documents (PR Card or DCPR) is unlawful.

[Obie]

The directive is clear and precise as to what a memberstate can and cannot do. Sets out in what circumstances fees can be demanded. Sets out the documents that needs to be provided.

I do not believe EU law gives authority to the UK to refuse to issue a residency documents because a person fail to meet an administration. It will be absurd to suggest that.

The question not whether they can request an application be filled, but whether they are permitted to refuse to issue a residence card to a person who refuse to fill a particular form.

I don't believe EU law permits the UK to refuse EU Residence card because a person fail to fill a 91 pages form that is the issue here, and i believe there is no legal basis for the UK's position.

That is that.

[Wise]

In fact am not surprise because HO have tried so many thing in the past and they will still do it to see how people react to it. I just pray that many legal people will eventually fight it out on behalf of those affected.

Again this is what I personally don't understand, how come the EU cannot challenge them straight away before they even launch the so call (Giro form).

[secret.simon]

how come the EU cannot challenge them straight away

Perhaps because nobody has brought it to the Commission's attention. Perhaps because the EU is not just about immigration.

Perhaps because they are preoccupied with the bigger Brexit developments.

Infringements-General Information

Infringements by country - December 2015 (latest report)

[mkhan2525]

I don't think the EU Commision is interested or it is not powerful enough to enforce the law on member states.

They promised infraction proceedings against the UK government to comply with EU law when the "centre of life test" was inserted into Reulation 9 and 3 years on its still there along with a host of recent changes that breach EU law.

[expatbg123]

Hi how does this affect me?
I am a non-EU and I am wanting to apply for PR by EEA4 in UK under Surinder Singh.
My spouse is UK citizen and I came to UK on Family Permit (2011) shortly after obtained RC. Both were issued as he had a company in Bulgaria owning one property. He did not take a salary from his company but took money out when needed shown in accounts as returning initial investment.
The new EEA4 form states that evidence of sponsor's employment or self-employment but how can this be proved? He can provide online bank statements and yearly accounts but this shows payment/registration of taxes as a company not as a self employed company and we were in Bulgaria for 10 months after which there has been few transactions in the Bulgarian company bank account.
When we applied for the EEA2, he wrote a letter stated that he employed himself which they accepted at the time as he is and was the only employee of his company.
None of this was required before and FP and EEA2 RC was issued. On this basis can they refuse PR if treaty rights cannot be evidenced? Thanks in advance for any advice

[Nikoletta12]

Hi obie,
I m reading ur posts from a long time I got a problem I applied for retained and after two months home office rejected my application rejection says declaration not signed that's application is invalid but I signed my declaration for my sponsor who was my wife I tick other and wrote divorce below other in the column can you pls confirm do I need to have sign of my ex wife I m divorced with her.