- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Thanks for your commentsWanderer wrote:EEA law states unmarrieds must show a 'durable relationship' - in the absence of any time period specified most States use their local law, mostly proof of two years cohab. Certainly the UK does that so I think ur over a barrel here with ur 18 months....
Also Family Members do get free Schengen visas but extended family members (ie unmarried partners) don't - gotta pay!
Thing is tho by the time u'd gone to court to fight it etc, u'd have been together well over two years by then! They know that too!TracyCK wrote:Thanks for your comments :)Wanderer wrote:EEA law states unmarrieds must show a 'durable relationship' - in the absence of any time period specified most States use their local law, mostly proof of two years cohab. Certainly the UK does that so I think ur over a barrel here with ur 18 months....
Also Family Members do get free Schengen visas but extended family members (ie unmarried partners) don't - gotta pay!
Although the UK requests 2 years, this isn't written into the Directive and guidelines seem to imply that cohabitation in itself is proof of the durable relationship. I figure if you couple that with a clear, documented intention to marry, it has to carry some weight. I do agree though that we are over a barrel here as it is very grey area.
I disagree. I agree the directive is fine and goodly but it's purpose is not to override local law.Obie wrote:Tracy i agree with you 101%. Most countries like Spain , Germany etc, are blatantly ignoring the provisions of Article 3. They are forgeting that other family member have rights similar to or on par with that of Article 2 family members and that the only difference is, they have to provide evidence beyond the familial relationship, to qualify, and an examination would have to be done to establish whether the set provision are met.
Go for it. I support you fully. I have also got my EEA family member to write to the commission complaining about the inconsistency/failure in applying Article 3(2) by some member states.
I disagree with this. EU Law is quite clear on providing provisions for other family members including unmarried partners and is in place to ensure freedom of movement to all EU Citizens exercising their Treaty Rights. It provides for this group on an EU level in the event that a Member State does not provide for it at a National level and all Member States MUST transpose the Directive into their National Laws when applying such to EU Citizens and their Families.Wanderer wrote:I disagree. I agree the directive is fine and goodly but it's purpose is not to override local law.Obie wrote:Tracy i agree with you 101%. Most countries like Spain , Germany etc, are blatantly ignoring the provisions of Article 3. They are forgeting that other family member have rights similar to or on par with that of Article 2 family members and that the only difference is, they have to provide evidence beyond the familial relationship, to qualify, and an examination would have to be done to establish whether the set provision are met.
Go for it. I support you fully. I have also got my EEA family member to write to the commission complaining about the inconsistency/failure in applying Article 3(2) by some member states.
If Germany doesn't want/have a law pertaining to immigration of unmarried partners, fine, we are not a United States of Europe yet. The local laws have to be respected and the directive provides for that thankfully.
It's not tho - the EEA understands the respective States have their local laws and the directives exist on top where they fit, the EEA is not a government!TracyCK wrote:I disagree with this. EU Law is quite clear on providing provisions for other family members including unmarried partners and is in place to ensure freedom of movement to all EU Citizens exercising their Treaty Rights. It provides for this group on an EU level in the event that a Member State does not provide for it at a National level and all Member States MUST transpose the Directive into their National Laws when applying such to EU Citizens and their Families.Wanderer wrote:I disagree. I agree the directive is fine and goodly but it's purpose is not to override local law.Obie wrote:Tracy i agree with you 101%. Most countries like Spain , Germany etc, are blatantly ignoring the provisions of Article 3. They are forgeting that other family member have rights similar to or on par with that of Article 2 family members and that the only difference is, they have to provide evidence beyond the familial relationship, to qualify, and an examination would have to be done to establish whether the set provision are met.
Go for it. I support you fully. I have also got my EEA family member to write to the commission complaining about the inconsistency/failure in applying Article 3(2) by some member states.
If Germany doesn't want/have a law pertaining to immigration of unmarried partners, fine, we are not a United States of Europe yet. The local laws have to be respected and the directive provides for that thankfully.
If EU Citizens can enter some Member States with their unmarried partners or extended Family Members, and not others, because of differing National Immigration Laws this would restrict their Treaty Rights and therefore go against the spirit of the Directive which is a uniform Law for the entire EU/EEA Community. If Member States can pick and choose which parts they transpose or not, it would be counterproductive, no?
This is a very serious matter Wanderer. The fact that the directive makes provision for appeal, means it is a serious matter. If member state were allowed to decide whether or not apply it, the directive will not make provision for appeal, would they?[b] Commission's Summer Report on Directive 2004/38EC adoptation[/b] wrote:
2.1. Family members and other beneficiaries
2.1.1. Spouses and partners
Partners with whom an EU citizen has a de facto durable relationship, duly attested, are covered by Article 3(2)(b). Persons who derive their rights under the Directive from being durable partners may be required to present documentary evidence that they are partners of an EU citizen and that the partnership is durable. Evidence may be adduced by any appropriate means.
The requirement of durability of the relationship must be assessed in the light of the objective of the Directive to maintain the unity of the family in a broad sense . National rules on durability of partnership can refer to a minimum amount of time as a criterion for whether a partnership can be considered as durable. However, in this case national rules would need to foresee that other relevant aspects (such as for example a joint mortgage to buy a home) are also taken into account. Any denial of entry or residence must be fully justified in writing and open to appeal.
I think this is the essence of the matter.Wanderer wrote:... in the case of Germany, a Germany guy in Munich cannot import his Russian unmarried partner under Germany law, since German law does not have this provision, so neither can an EEA citizen living in Munich ...!
But it does...Prawo wrote:
I think this is the essence of the matter.
The directive does not oblige member states to facilitate the residence of unmarried partners.
I have residency in Spain since 2006. The statement about EU Law not applying for non-residents actually shows the lack of knowledge that they apparently have. EU law would actually not apply to Resident Nationals and yet does to all visiting EU/EEA Citizens and their Family Members. I think the Gibraltar issue will be resolved via the Ombudsman. They have a weird setup there in regards to processing visas. I am not sure that this will help us much, but will still see it through for my own satisfaction.When you are British for a trip to Gibraltar still the directive will not apply, unless you reside already in another member state.
Thanks for that!freshprince wrote:Hello Tracy.
You are quite a scrapper,very admirable tenacity you got going there.Two points.
1)Inasmuch as your grounds of having a durable,long standing partnership as required is a pretty strong one,having a marriage certificate brings you completely under the ambit of the law,the border guards you met were edging their bets by saying that if you had this paper they would have been obliged to grant you entry.Its the difference between a free throw and a slam dunk.A durable partnership etc is open to all sorts of interpretations,a marriage certificate is Q.E.D,TALK-TO-THE-HAND and kiss my ..........!YOU-CANT-TOUCH-THIS-time..whew,you get the drift.
2)Those free internet translators are not very accurate and the points you raised are too weighty for you to risk having them lost in translation,if I were you,I'd get it properly translated and then fax it again.
Stay up Tracy.Peace.
ciaramc wrote:Tracey,
I have had similar problems in the past....but SOLVIT will not get involved if legal proceedings are ongoing....what you need to do is file a complaint with the EU commission. That is what worked for me! Ok it took a while but they are the ones that can help you!
Here is the link below -
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/your_ ... rms_en.htm