- 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
Of course because PR is acquired automatically and there is no requirement to have it confirmed.nonspecifics wrote:the exception being EU applicants can pick and choose which 5 years of exercising Treaty Rights
So, here is a scenario, say for example:it strikes me as odd that a single absence of more than six months could technically be swept under the carpet because it crosses a year-boundary. I would think an absence of more than six months consecutively breaks the continuity of residence, regardless of its position within the five-year period.
Do you have a link to this brochure? Or can you post it here?nonspecifics wrote:I read this from an EU law training brochure:
"When calculating....5 year period for permanent residence ...3 month absence wouldn't break continuity; you would not have to start counting afresh, but you could not count the 3 months towards the 5 years required."
It is unclear whether "six months a year" means "six months in any calendar year" or "six months in any rolling one year window".3. Continuity of residence shall not be affected by temporary absences not exceeding a total of six months a year, or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military service, or by one absence of a maximum of 12 consecutive months for important reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth, serious illness, study or vocational training, or a posting in another Member State or a third country.
To me this is pretty clearly a calendar year. If it was a rolling window (or something complicated) they would have to explicitly specify that.Continuity of residence
3.—(1) [...]
(2) Continuity of residence is not affected by —
(a) periods of absence from the United Kingdom which do not exceed six months in total in any year;
I believe the Court of Session is also the next step on from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunals in the appeals process in Scotland.Conclusion
[16] For the foregoing reasons, we consider that the period of twelve calendar months, which began with 8 April 2002, ended with 7 April 2003. When the appellant's employment was effectively terminated on that date, she had therefore been continuously employed for a period of not less than one year.
I'm sorry but I find the conclusion that it should be a calendar year extremely unlogical. As the five year period is allowed to start on any date, not necessarily 1 January, each of the five constituent years in this period should also start on the same arbitrary date.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:If in doubt, look it up: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006 ... e/data.pdfTo me this is pretty clearly a calendar year. If it was a rolling window (or something complicated) they would have to explicitly specify that.Continuity of residence
3.—(1) [...]
(2) Continuity of residence is not affected by —
(a) periods of absence from the United Kingdom which do not exceed six months in total in any year;
The case was about employment law, which I think is UK law. They referred to the House of Lords ( UK / english law) for case law.it is obviously one from Scotland (different jurisdiction).