Entry into the UK with a family member residence card

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

...those who have already obtained a residence card should be exempted from the requirement to obtain an entry visa...

Although I never read this, I think it leaves exactly the same ambiguity. :(

It would defy logic...It can therefore only mean option 2.

While I´m on your side, logic doesn´t seem to be what the Commission or any national politician uses lately. It´s all about being re-elected and/or appearing in the news with some important topic. 2004/38/EC covers very well what the masses need: Visa-free-travel and settlement for EU citizens. Niche-cases such as family-members aren´t interesting: No sizeable amount of voters to be won. No interest, no discussion, no change.

Unfortunately.

Now that SuperSarko wants to undo Schengen, we may need a completely new basis for all our arguments soon. Although I believe this to be empty election talk...

Yes, desperate measures for the drowning president.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

The problem that I know of is the wording in Article 5, Section 2:

...For the purposes of this Directive, possession of
the valid residence card referred to in Article 10 shall exempt
such family members from the visa requirement.

The last sentence is logically incomplete. It could mean:

1. ...shall exempt such family members from the visa requirement in the country that issued the residence card (UK´s interpretation) OR
2. ...shall exempt such family members from the visa requirement in all member states (general interpretation)

The Commission and the ECJ made it abundantly clear that they support version 2. The UK , however, say they signed up to version 1. As such they need an extra lesson from the Commission/ECJ to make them understand.

What I don´t understand is - if the Commission and the ECJ clearly mean and always intended version 1 - why don´t they change the wording of the law to make it clearer. After all, it wouldn´t really change anything.

See also >>here<<.

While I accept that the language is perhaps ambiguous and could be construed to mean either a residence card issued by only one member state or by any member state, I’ve come to the conclusion that it can only mean the resident card of the member state that issued it and therefore not (just) of the member state whose territory the third country national is entering.

Article 11 uses similar language and is about the residence card’s validity. That article can only be construed to relate to the member state that issued the card and not any other. There really isn’t any other possibility. Given the language is the same in articles 5 and 11, “the valid residence card” should only be construed as one that has been issued by the member state that issued it.

It is also noteworthy that article 5 states “for the purposes of this directive, etc”. It would be possible for a holder of a residence card not to be exempt from the visa requirement if the directive did not apply to their case, eg a third country national resident in a member state traveling to another member state on business on their own. If the residence card only pertained to those issued by the host member state, the words “for the purposes of this directive” would be superfluous.

Also, given article 5.4, if the legislature had intended to only allow re-entry to the member state that issued the card without a visa (the UK’s position), then the line about residence cards would not need to be there. The very fact that one has a residence card could be used to prove the relationship to the EU national existed.

I have tried to come up with an argument that would support the UK’s position. The only purpose would be to stop member states introducing “re-entry” visas. It would be an absurd position indeed of one had the right of residence in a Member State, but not a right of entry.
I hope this makes some sense. It’s all playing with words really.

[ca.funke]

...It’s all playing with words really...

And playing with how serious you can take the European "Union".

What sense does it make that some Schengen-embassies say that you may enter Schengen, while others say you may not. Example >>Lithuania vs. Poland<<

If entry-requirements to Schengen are not uniform, they should (logically) reintroduce border-checks.

It´s really tragic how this great idea of the Union is currently being destroyed... Currency, Politics, Energy, Immigration... Absolutely nothing works uniformly and concisely.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

The directive is unlikely to be changed given the amount of effort and horse-trading that would involve. If people like me and you keep chipping away, things will improve.

[mastermind]

Probably I'm a bit late with this response, but I found that the Commission responds much quicker to MEPs than us, mere mortals, so if you write to your MEP asking for assistance or even get ANY MEP (from any country) interested in resolving the problem in question, they might help. (I know this because i tried it and it worked, on an issue unrelated to this topic though)

Email addresses and other contact information of all MEPs can be found on the European Parliament's website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search.html

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

Probably I'm a bit late with this response, but I found that the Commission responds much quicker to MEPs than us, mere mortals, so if you write to your MEP asking for assistance or even get ANY MEP (from any country) interested in resolving the problem in question, they might help. (I know this because i tried it and it worked, on an issue unrelated to this topic though)

Email addresses and other contact information of all MEPs can be found on the European Parliament's website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search.html

Good point, but the commission, parliament, etc are all well aware of this issue. The commission's stance is that they will bring all non-conformance into line, but it's a question of priorities. One thing that was perhaps more serious was the delays in issuing residence cards on the part of the UK, intervention there appears to have helped.

Complaining helps make it a priority (maybe there are a low number of complaints for this).

Ireland used to take the same stance and had the beautiful excuse that the UK did is too so it must have been right (so much for independence)! I'm not sure what exactly prompted them to change their mind, but do know that there was a court case where they'd arrested a Moldavian lady who had a residence card from another member state and had to pay her compensation.

[newbieholland]

Ireland used to take the same stance and had the beautiful excuse that the UK did is too so it must have been right (so much for independence)! I'm not sure what exactly prompted them to change their mind, but do know that there was a court case where they'd arrested a Moldavian lady who had a residence card from another member state and had to pay her compensation.

HI EUsmileWEallsmile,

Do you have more information on this? I am in the same boat and I see you replied to my thread in EEA FP section regarding entering UK without the FP. I am looking for more information on this and any possible action that might be taken against the non EU national (possible arrest). I know there are chances of the non EU national getting arrested as UK doesnt appreciate any family values in my opinion. Please share the links for the court case if you have any.

Thanks

[MelC]

...It’s all playing with words really...

And playing with how serious you can take the European "Union".

What sense does it make that some Schengen-embassies say that you may enter Schengen, while others say you may not. Example >>Lithuania vs. Poland<<

If entry-requirements to Schengen are not uniform, they should (logically) reintroduce border-checks.

It´s really tragic how this great idea of the Union is currently being destroyed... Currency, Politics, Energy, Immigration... Absolutely nothing works uniformly and concisely.

one size NEVER fits all?

[mastermind]

Good point, but the commission, parliament, etc are all well aware of this issue. The commission's stance is that they will bring all non-conformance into line, but it's a question of priorities.

Yes, they might be aware of the issue, but nevertheless putting some pressure on them via MEPs could be useful still as it would be much more difficult for them ignoring MEPs, therefore such actions might affect their priorities.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

Good point, but the commission, parliament, etc are all well aware of this issue. The commission's stance is that they will bring all non-conformance into line, but it's a question of priorities.

Yes, they might be aware of the issue, but nevertheless putting some pressure on them via MEPs could be useful still as it would be much more difficult for them ignoring MEPs, therefore such actions might affect their priorities.

Fair point.

[docteurbenway]

...those who have already obtained a residence card should be exempted from the requirement to obtain an entry visa...

Although I never read this, I think it leaves exactly the same ambiguity.

It would defy logic...It can therefore only mean option 2.

While I´m on your side, logic doesn´t seem to be what the Commission or any national politician uses lately. It´s all about being re-elected and/or appearing in the news with some important topic. 2004/38/EC covers very well what the masses need: Visa-free-travel and settlement for EU citizens. Niche-cases such as family-members aren´t interesting: No sizeable amount of voters to be won. No interest, no discussion, no change.

Unfortunately.

Now that SuperSarko wants to undo Schengen, we may need a completely new basis for all our arguments soon. Although I believe this to be empty election talk...

If you consider this

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/ ... 051_en.pdf

then you see that the commission clearly states that:

According to the terms of Article 5(2) of the Directive, in order to be exempt from the visa requirement, it is sufficient for family members to possess a valid residence card issued in accordance with Article 10 of the Directive. This provision is not limited to the Member State that issued the residence card. Such requirement goes beyond what is provided for in the Directive.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

Thanks docteurbenway. Just for information, the position of the commission does not actually make it law (Incidentally, I happen to agree with the commission's position). As the UK does not appear to agree with the commission, it may take a court case to resolve.

[docteurbenway]

Thanks docteurbenway. Just for information, the position of the commission does not actually make it law (Incidentally, I happen to agree with the commission's position). As the UK does not appear to agree with the commission, it may take a court case to resolve.

I was just reading the news and thought this is hilarious. The UK is doing all it can to prevent EEA Family members from coming to the UK even for a short shopping trip, but has no problem giving a CITIZENSHIP to this fellow:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... tizen.html

[ca.funke]

Terror suspect could be made British citizen

First things first: I don´t want to defend the guy, just shed a light on the journalism and the laws.

The first sentence, actually the headline, is already technically wrong: As we learn later in the article the guy was made a British citizen in 2000. In 2007 his citizenship was revoked, and the current legal battle was around the question whether this revocation was legal. So he is not made a British citizen now, he would "only" be allowed to keep his citizenship.

...allegedly helped an explosives expert travel to Iraq...

Seems like it can´t be proven?

He was also accused of being a terrorist recruiter. He was arrested in Iraq in 2004 and held for three years before being released without charge.

Sounds like he was illegally detained w/o trial or proof?

...stripped him of that citizenship in 2007 on the grounds that it was “conducive to the public good” to do so...

Again, no proof...?

But the Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that decision was flawed because it made him “stateless”, which is illegal under an international convention.

It transpired that Al-Jedda automatically lost his Iraqi citizenship when he was given the British one.

I´ve been supporting the idea that everyone who is granted citizenship should be obliged to retain his original citizenship. In rare cases (where guilt is proven), it would then be possible to strip citizenship w/o rendering anyone stateless... (Of course impossible where loss is automatic through accepting another citizenship, but in most cases this would/could work)

In an added blow, it emerged that the last Labour Government could have avoided such cases by implementing a special clause in law ten years ago but failed to do so.

It would be key to learn what that change would have done?

...it was believed that he had recruited and aided terrorists...

He was suspected of conspiring...

British intelligence services also believed he had conspired with...

He was released from detention without charge...

What did they actually prove, and on what basis was he detained for 3 years?

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former Army officer, said: “It sticks in the craw that someone who might be attacking our soldiers will be given British citizenship.”

Again: He is not given citizenship, it´s "just" not taken away from him. The corresponding decision of 2007 is overruled, as such he has technically been British since 2000, and continues to be British.

(My) summary:

• Citizenship law should provide for stripping citizenship in extreme cases, and in a way that can be enforced.
• No-one should be held for extended periods without charge.

Just an idea: If a Western citizen is "suspected" of terrorism, it could be made possible to lay a travel-ban on them. Idea: If you want to be a Westerner, stay in the Western world. If you still have business in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the like, you have to get an "exit visa" or "special permission" from our side before you go... If you enter any of these countries w/o that, we will assume you have something to hide from us, which in itself could be declared a crime. Like this there could be a proven wrong, which could be made punishable...

...and I´m not saying this being totally unaffected: I have regular business in Lebanon, which in my case is visiting the parents in law...

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

You can't trust what any headline in a UK paper. It's for selling papers. Never let the headline get in the way of a good story.

[docteurbenway]

Terror suspect could be made British citizen

...and I´m not saying this being totally unaffected: I have regular business in Lebanon, which in my case is visiting the parents in law...

By the way i was wondering about that did you meet you wife in Lebanon? Thats a pretty exotic country, i am just curious because i do not know any Lebanese/... couples.

Bless

[docteurbenway]

You can't trust what any headline in a UK paper. It's for selling papers. Never let the headline get in the way of a good story.

Actually here is another funny paradox, the U.K. seems to give every single person no matter how bizarre a right to political asylum.

As you have read in the article i showed you before the "British Citizen" in question was a dude that claimed asylum from Iraqi oppression. And behold a few years later he is given citizenship and goes to Iraq to "allegedly" plot again the western military there.

Here is another funny dude, Abu Qatada, the guy came to the U.K. on a fake passport, claimed asylum from political oppression from Jordan which was never proven and behold he is given every right to live and enjoy the albion.

Until he started hate preaching against westerners and was found with money to fund terrorist activities.

And what the U.K. does is give him a better house:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... house.html

But in case of EEA Family members they need a 17 page form a ton of papers and you are labeled a suspicious person before you are deemed worthy to approach their "holy boarder" and get the wonderful honor to shop in their stores.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

Asylum is a complex and serious issue. There are checks and balances. Your entitled to your views, but be careful what you read in the press. Cat anyone?

[docteurbenway]

Here is another bit of news this time from the UK-Ireland border.

It appears that the UK authorities are starting to increase border control at the Irish border to prevent people holders of an Irish visa from crossing into Northern Ireland to visit the Cultural City of The Year 2012 celebrations taking place in Derry.

What this potentially means is that British, Irish, EU and other nationalities as well as EEA Family members are going to be checked on localness.

More here:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 39217.html

So much for the CTA

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

I don't think anything much has changed here. It's the newspaper trying to fill pages. Visa nationals to the UK (inc Derry) need a visa for the UK. Visa nationals for Ireland need a visa for Ireland.

What's different is that Ireland is trialing a visa waiver scheme for certain categories of UK visa holder if they are of certain nationalities and that they enter the UK first.