EU_lawyer wrote:YEA is aware of these problems and some of our experts participated in a report for the European Parliament in which we identified the problems and recommended further action.
Regrettably, we don't have the mandate to represent people who continue to face difficulties in exercising their residence rights.
Our approach is always to identify what rights an enquirer has and then to encourage that person to raise the matter again with the Home Office. This has been successful in many cases.
If that does not work, we can refer them to other organisations which can take further action including court proceedings.
For the UK, these include:
-SOLVIT, the EU's network of government officials, who can try to achieve a compromise.
-the AIRE centre which can take up cases free of charge for persons on a limited income;
-ECAS which has a partnership with lawyers to provide free legal representation for persons on a limited income.
Enquirers also have the possibility of raising the issue with their MP or MEP, who are under a duty to respond. In serious cases, we also suggest that the enquirer send an official complaint to the European Commission and/or the European Parliament.
Perhaps you can tell me more about your particular situation?
Yes, in principle I think it's very important work you do. The issue I have with the legal advice you guys provide is that it's inherently flawed inasmuch as it's based on the (false) premise that EU member states are going to actually ABIDE by community law.
ONLY after infringement proceedings are opened against a member state will it (usually) move to bring its practices in line with current community law.. and since this process is so slow and cumbersome the member states capitalise on it by basically ignoring the principle of 'rule of law' until they face stiff economic sanctions.
My personal situation is that I am a Danish national who had the audacity of falling in love with and marrying a national of the African country Guinea-Bissau.
We met in the Gambia were we also married. When I tried to combine a honeymoon with a business trip to the Netherlands we were refused an entry visa at the Dutch embassy in Senegal. We then tried the other EU representations there but none of them would issue my wife with a free entry visa. This is all in direct contrast to the advice I recieved from your service, btw.
When I described my situation here in this forum I soon found out that there are A LOT of EU citizens trapped in Africa because EU embassies there are in direct violation of community law on free movement as a rule rather than an exception.
I wrote a formal complaint to the Commission which they replied to 6 months later. The told me that it's a focus area for the Commission but no infringement proceedings would be opened against any of the involved member states.
Since then, I have managed to obtain a national visa for my spouse to Denmark. We have been denied family unification here and my wife have had a deportation order issued against her.
This is despite the fact that she's now 6 month pregnant with my child, despite the fact that the Court of the European Union with the Zambrano-ruling declared it unlawful for member states to expel parents of minor unions citizens and despite the fact that I have a right to family life enshrined in the ECHR article 8... a convention ALL EU member states have to ratify in order to enjoy membership of the Union.
Honestly, I am probably just jaded and sick and tired of hearing about my rights as a European when all I have encountered is dearly beloved lovely from government officials disguised as a 'firm and fair' immigration policy..
What I have decided to do about my situation is to sue my own country for breaching community law.
Basically, my argument will be that IF the Carpenter-ruling allows a provider of services free movement in other member states and thus his third-country spouse a right of residence in the service provider's own member state, and since a denial of this residence right in the service provider's own member state would lead to the service provider leaving the territory of the union, THEN the exact same holds true for a RECIPIENT of services.
The freedom to exchange services is a dual-pronged freedom for both PROVIDERS as well as RECIPIENTS. This has been firmly established in numerous cases (Luisi & Carbone, Watts, Cowan etc.).
Interestingly, I have previously written your legal advice service to ask if this is the case indeed but recieved a long-winded waffle without any substance or clear-cut answer to my question.
Perhaps you would like to critique my legal argument here?
Should the Court of the European Union agree that I am right in this I foresee a veritable deluge of compensation lawsuits against governments all over Europe who have misled their own citizens into moving to neighbouring member states for prolonged periods of time when all they really had to do was exercise their right to free movement as recipients of services in another member state as tourists, for instance.
Regards,
MSH.
