- 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
Thank you for your positive response, however I am concerned whether my first year as a student qualifies as "exercising my EU treaty rights" considering that we did not have "comprehensive medical insurance".rebel82 wrote:No you don't have to wait you can apply now because the time you were student you were exercising your EU treaty rights so it shouldn't be any problem.
she will be issued with PR.
Datuchi, I have spent literally about 6 hours reading a large number of posts on this very website. You can see that even in this thread, there are now 2 conflicting positions. You state that I can't prove continuous exercise of the treaty rights and therefore she's not eligible. On the contrary, Rebel82 writes just above that it's no problem, we can go ahead and apply now.datuchi wrote:Dont know if u read other posts here esp. the one titled compr. ins.
In brief, on the EEA4 form they will ask for proof of exercising treaty rights and u wont be able to provide it. 5yrs from when u can prove CONTINUOUS exercise for 5 yrs.
Read through other topics here, will make it clear
[b]Baumbast Ruling[/b] wrote:
92 In respect of the application of the principle of proportionality to the facts of the Baumbast case, it must be recalled, first, that it has not been denied that Mr Baumbast has sufficient resources within the meaning of Directive 90/364; second, that he worked and therefore lawfully resided in the host Member State for several years, initially as an employed person and subsequently as a self-employed person; third, that during that period his family also resided in the host Member State and remained there even after his activities as an employed and self-employed person in that State came to an end; fourth, that neither Mr Baumbast nor the members of his family have become burdens on the public finances of the host Member State and, fifth, that both Mr Baumbast and his family have comprehensive sickness insurance in another Member State of the Union.
93 Under those circumstances, to refuse to allow Mr Baumbast to exercise the right of residence which is conferred on him by Article 18(1) EC by virtue of the application of the provisions of Directive 90/364 on the ground that his sickness insurance does not cover the emergency treatment given in the host Member State would amount to a disproportionate interference with the exercise of that right
[b]UK EU Appeal caselaws[/b] wrote: 3.4 Sickness Insurance
Persons must not become a burden on the public finances of the host Member State. In paragraph 93 of Baumbast, the ECJ found that it was disproportionate for a lack of sickness insurance that covered emergency medical treatment within the UK to be a reason for refusing to grant a right of residence on this basis. Furthermore, the law in regard to the NHS prevents us from restricting people from obtaining medical treatment after they have been here for more than 12 months.
Presenting Officers should seek to argue that an EEA national who holds no form of medical insurance is not appropriately covered. Where evidence of medical insurance is produced, it must clearly demonstrate that the EEA national and their families are covered in respect of all pre-existing medical conditions that require medication and/or treatment as well as any treatment that may be required for serious or long-term medical conditions. Any arguments should focus on whether or not the EEA national or their
Obie, thank you very much for the response and case reference.Obie wrote:Scandic i am confident that you qualify. The fact that the HO issued your wife an EEA family permit, indicates you were and are a qualified person.
I suspect you can apply now, infact you qualified since this summer gone.
They will have to be extremely mean to ask you for a medical insurance covering 2004, when there was no policy in place for Medical insurance to be held then.
Were you doing any part time work during your studies?
Can i ask if you held a registeration certificate during that 2004 period.
[b]Baumbast Ruling[/b] wrote:
92 In respect of the application of the principle of proportionality to the facts of the Baumbast case, it must be recalled, first, that it has not been denied that Mr Baumbast has sufficient resources within the meaning of Directive 90/364; second, that he worked and therefore lawfully resided in the host Member State for several years, initially as an employed person and subsequently as a self-employed person; third, that during that period his family also resided in the host Member State and remained there even after his activities as an employed and self-employed person in that State came to an end; fourth, that neither Mr Baumbast nor the members of his family have become burdens on the public finances of the host Member State and, fifth, that both Mr Baumbast and his family have comprehensive sickness insurance in another Member State of the Union.
93 Under those circumstances, to refuse to allow Mr Baumbast to exercise the right of residence which is conferred on him by Article 18(1) EC by virtue of the application of the provisions of Directive 90/364 on the ground that his sickness insurance does not cover the emergency treatment given in the host Member State would amount to a disproportionate interference with the exercise of that right
[b]UK EU Appeal caselaws[/b] wrote: 3.4 Sickness Insurance
Persons must not become a burden on the public finances of the host Member State. In paragraph 93 of Baumbast, the ECJ found that it was disproportionate for a lack of sickness insurance that covered emergency medical treatment within the UK to be a reason for refusing to grant a right of residence on this basis. Furthermore, the law in regard to the NHS prevents us from restricting people from obtaining medical treatment after they have been here for more than 12 months.
Presenting Officers should seek to argue that an EEA national who holds no form of medical insurance is not appropriately covered. Where evidence of medical insurance is produced, it must clearly demonstrate that the EEA national and their families are covered in respect of all pre-existing medical conditions that require medication and/or treatment as well as any treatment that may be required for serious or long-term medical conditions. Any arguments should focus on whether or not the EEA national or their
[b] Issue of EEA family permitEEA regulation 2000[/b] wrote: 13. - (1) An entry clearance officer must issue an EEA family permit, free of charge, to a person who applies for one if he is a family member of -
(a) a qualified person; or
(b) a person who is not a qualified person, where that person -
(i) will be travelling to the United Kingdom with the person who has made the application within a year of the date of the application; and
(ii) will be a qualified person on arrival in the United Kingdom.
Therefore the fact that your wife was issued an EEA family permit on that basis , indicates that you were considered a qualified person then.
I think you are misinterpreting Baumbast Ruling.Obie wrote:Scandic i am confident that you qualify. The fact that the HO issued your wife an EEA family permit, indicates you were and are a qualified person.
I suspect you can apply now, infact you qualified since this summer gone.
They will have to be extremely mean to ask you for a medical insurance covering 2004, when there was no policy in place for Medical insurance to be held then.
Were you doing any part time work during your studies?
Can i ask if you held a registeration certificate during that 2004 period.
[b]Baumbast Ruling[/b] wrote:
92 In respect of the application of the principle of proportionality to the facts of the Baumbast case, it must be recalled, first, that it has not been denied that Mr Baumbast has sufficient resources within the meaning of Directive 90/364; second, that he worked and therefore lawfully resided in the host Member State for several years, initially as an employed person and subsequently as a self-employed person; third, that during that period his family also resided in the host Member State and remained there even after his activities as an employed and self-employed person in that State came to an end; fourth, that neither Mr Baumbast nor the members of his family have become burdens on the public finances of the host Member State and, fifth, that both Mr Baumbast and his family have comprehensive sickness insurance in another Member State of the Union.
93 Under those circumstances, to refuse to allow Mr Baumbast to exercise the right of residence which is conferred on him by Article 18(1) EC by virtue of the application of the provisions of Directive 90/364 on the ground that his sickness insurance does not cover the emergency treatment given in the host Member State would amount to a disproportionate interference with the exercise of that right
[b]UK EU Appeal caselaws[/b] wrote: 3.4 Sickness Insurance
Persons must not become a burden on the public finances of the host Member State. In paragraph 93 of Baumbast, the ECJ found that it was disproportionate for a lack of sickness insurance that covered emergency medical treatment within the UK to be a reason for refusing to grant a right of residence on this basis. Furthermore, the law in regard to the NHS prevents us from restricting people from obtaining medical treatment after they have been here for more than 12 months.
Presenting Officers should seek to argue that an EEA national who holds no form of medical insurance is not appropriately covered. Where evidence of medical insurance is produced, it must clearly demonstrate that the EEA national and their families are covered in respect of all pre-existing medical conditions that require medication and/or treatment as well as any treatment that may be required for serious or long-term medical conditions. Any arguments should focus on whether or not the EEA national or their
19 During the material period, Mr and Mrs Baumbast owned a house in the United Kingdom and their daughters went to school there. They did not receive any social benefits and, having comprehensive medical insurance in Germany, they travelled there, when necessary, for medical treatment.
Now if you look at paragraph 93 more closely you will see it reiterates that Mr Baumbast had sickness insurance, but it didn't cover emergency treatment. And the ruling says it's disproportianate to require insurance to cover emergency treatment as well.89 As to the condition relating to sickness insurance, the file shows that both Mr Baumbast and the members of his family are covered by comprehensive sickness insurance in Germany. The Adjudicator seems to have found that that sickness insurance could not cover emergency treatment given in the United Kingdom. It is for the national tribunal to determine whether that finding is correct in the light of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
93 Under those circumstances, to refuse to allow Mr Baumbast to exercise the right of residence which is conferred on him by Article 18(1) EC by virtue of the application of the provisions of Directive 90/364 on the ground that his sickness insurance does not cover the emergency treatment given in the host Member State would amount to a disproportionate interference with the exercise of that right
I don't know how you came to this conclusion. Baumbast ruling was made on 17 September 2002.They will have to be extremely mean to ask you for a medical insurance covering 2004, when there was no policy in place for Medical insurance to be held then.
With regards to UK EU Appeal caselaws it doesn't say it's OK to not have sickness insurance.6 Under the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26), Member States are to grant the right of residence to nationals of Member States who do not enjoy that right under other provisions of Community law and to members of their families as defined in Article 1(2) of that directive, provided that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence.
3.4 Sickness Insurance
Persons must not become a burden on the public finances of the host Member State. In paragraph 93 of Baumbast, the ECJ found that it was disproportionate for a lack of sickness insurance that covered emergency medical treatment within the UK to be a reason for refusing to grant a right of residence on this basis. Furthermore, the law in regard to the NHS prevents us from restricting people from obtaining medical treatment after they have been here for more than 12 months.
Presenting Officers should seek to argue that an EEA national who holds no form of medical insurance is not appropriately covered. Where evidence of medical insurance is produced, it must clearly demonstrate that the EEA national and their families are covered in respect of all pre-existing medical conditions that require medication and/or treatment as well as any treatment that may be required for serious or long-term medical conditions.
Obie wrote:I think we have to try and be civil to each other and not engage in personal attack.
Scandic wrote:Hi all,
Thank you for an interesting discussion and good points.
There is an urgency to this, which is why we don't want to wait until Oct/2010.
I will leave UK at the end of Jan/2010 to take up work in a "high risk, undesirable" country (non-EU), and my wife has no intention to join me there. The posting is expected to be 2-3 years.
She wants to stay in the UK in the meantime. So the way we currently see it is that either
"Plan A" she gets PR now (lodge the application before I leave)
"Plan B" we divorce and she retains her residency (and we re-marry sometime later)
"Plan B" appears more safe, with less room for interpretation and risk than "Plan A".
"Plan C" appears to be claiming that I am "self employed" or "self sufficient" in the UK until Oct/2010. I do have substantial monthly investment income (which I can pay tax on), and can pay for a medical insurance. Due to operating in "difficult countries", I also have two passports (identical duplicates) and can leave one with my wife, which would have no foreign work permits or indications that I work full-time in another country. However, I think this is not the right way to do it and would much prefer to do it by the book.
many thanks
Ivan
BLK235 wrote:Just a small thing. As you started work in Aug 2005 your wife should be able to apply for PR in Aug 2010 not Oct 2010.
If you can show you were looking for work since July 2005 then she should be able to apply in July 2010.
As far as I know under EU rules there is no minimum requirement as to how many hours per week you need to work to qualify as a worker, so if you worked just a couple of hours a week back when you were a student you might have qualified.