ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
.norwegianish wrote:Of course we will set one up, don't worry : ) Sorry, by "may" I meant "we will set it up once they let us", since they usually require the EEA national to register with the authorities first (f.ex. apply for and receive a "D-Number" (a temporary national security number) and the Registration Certificate, etc.)
In Ireland all you need is a TV license as proof of address (you can get tv license for any address for just 170 euro) and your passport. - so i would assume the same is true for any country...Graham Weifang wrote:.norwegianish wrote:Of course we will set one up, don't worry : ) Sorry, by "may" I meant "we will set it up once they let us", since they usually require the EEA national to register with the authorities first (f.ex. apply for and receive a "D-Number" (a temporary national security number) and the Registration Certificate, etc.)
You don't need any "D" number to open a bank account.
Just a proof of address, and your passport, thats all.
All very easy in Norway.
Gra.
norwegianish wrote:Hi again everyone, apologies for reviving the thread - we have just stumbled across a few uncertainties:
My spouse needs and wants to keep up his 2-3 main clients in the UK (on a freelance-basis) while we are in Norway. While we will do our best to try to secure at least one Norway-based client, we can't guarantee how much he could earn in the 3 months from any Norway-based clients.
Basically, most of his earnings will be from his existing UK-clients (we can't even guarantee that they would be willing to make the payments to his Norwegian account). If we're lucky, he may pick up a Norway-based client or two, but most likely the amounts will be quite small.
What are your thoughts on this? Would the ECO be willing to view the UK-based income transferred to his Norwegian account + some smaller Norway-based earnings (paid directly to his Norwegian account) as sufficient?
Also, if we set up a join bank account, would they be willing to count our joint earnings? (We work on similar projects and would share a billing address anyway).
(PS: We will otherwise have lots of paperwork to show that he is well-established as a sole-trader in Norway - bank accounts, official business register, confirmed address, registration confirmation, tax ID number, etc.)
THE COURT,
in answer to the question referred to it by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal by order of 16 December 1999, hereby rules:
Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect for family life, is to be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a refusal, by the Member State of origin of a provider of services established in that Member State who provides services to recipients established in other Member States, of the right to reside in its territory to that provider's spouse, who is a national of a third country.
107. Accordingly, I propose that the Court should give the following answer to the question referred to it:
Where a national of a Member State resident in that Member State provides services to persons in other Member States and is married to a spouse who is not a national of a Member State, the spouse who is a national of a non-member country may not rely on Article 49 EC but may rely on Council Directive 73/148/EEC on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services, to obtain the right to reside with his or her spouse in the latter's Member State of origin. It must be taken into account here that Directive 73/148 is to be interpreted in the light of freedom to provide services and of fundamental rights, in particular the right to respect for family life.
The answer to the question referred is no different if the spouse who is not a national of a Member State indirectly assists the spouse who is such a national to provide services in other Member States by caring for that spouse's children.
If you dont show any Norway based income it will not be an effective economical activity. It has to be a economic activity rather than just setting up a business to qualify for Singh. The profitability should not matter as long as the activity is genuine.norwegianish wrote:Thanks ukforever & wiggsy : )
OK, so technically they couldn't deny it to us even if we couldn't show any Norway-based income/invoices? Given the nature of his work (start-up businesses, which often don't pay off until lots of groundwork is completed first, if at all!), this seems fair for self-employed/freelancers.
no so much in the eyes of the EU...nobodysperfect wrote:If you dont show any Norway based income it will not be an effective economical activity. It has to be a economic activity rather than just setting up a business to qualify for Singh. The profitability should not matter as long as the activity is genuinenorwegianish wrote:Thanks ukforever & wiggsy : )
OK, so technically they couldn't deny it to us even if we couldn't show any Norway-based income/invoices? Given the nature of his work (start-up businesses, which often don't pay off until lots of groundwork is completed first, if at all!), this seems fair for self-employed/freelancers.
Thats just my opinion.
)Time for a FOI request?Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Can I add a vaguely related question...
Once the EU citizen returns to their home member state, I am curious about how subsequent interruptions of their residence are interpreted with respect to the family member.
Is the returning EU citizen considered to have PR (i.e. absences of up to 2 years are fine) or do they need to be aware of absences of more than 6 months?
I would say normal rules apply (6 months, one 12 month for important reasons). The return resident can't be considered holding PR as he has not completed 5 years under the regulations.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Can I add a vaguely related question...
Once the EU citizen returns to their home member state, I am curious about how subsequent interruptions of their residence are interpreted with respect to the family member.
Is the returning EU citizen considered to have PR (i.e. absences of up to 2 years are fine) or do they need to be aware of absences of more than 6 months?
but he is already settled - he doesnt have to excersise treaty rights... thus its "implied" PR...Jambo wrote:I would say normal rules apply (6 months, one 12 month for important reasons). The return resident can't be considered holding PR as he has not completed 5 years under the regulations.Directive/2004/38/EC wrote:Can I add a vaguely related question...
Once the EU citizen returns to their home member state, I am curious about how subsequent interruptions of their residence are interpreted with respect to the family member.
Is the returning EU citizen considered to have PR (i.e. absences of up to 2 years are fine) or do they need to be aware of absences of more than 6 months?
Basically means that even if the non-EEA doesn't live in the EEA with the BC, then UKBA still have to assess human rights? right?4.
Where a national of a Member State married to a national of a non-Member State with whom she is living in another Member State returns to the Member State of which she is a national in order to work there as an employed person and, at the time of her return, her spouse does not enjoy the rights provided for in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 because he has not resided lawfully on the territory of a Member State, the competent authorities of the first-mentioned Member State, in assessing the application by the spouse to enter and remain in that Member State, must none the less have regard to the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, provided that the marriage is genuine.
1.
The provisions of this Directive shall apply to any national of a Member State who resides in or travels to another Member State of the Community, either in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person, or as a recipient of services.
2.
These provisions shall apply also to the spouse and to members of the family who come within the provisions of the regulations and directives adopted in this field in pursuance of the Treaty.
To obtain PR status one needs to meet the requirements in Regulation 15 which requires (unless the EEA national dies) 5 years of residence. The fact that the returning resident is considered a qualified person without exercising treaty rights doesn't mean he is considered holding PR. if A leads to B, having B doesn't mean you had A.wiggsy wrote: but he is already settled - he doesnt have to excersise treaty rights... thus its "implied" PR...
Which is why the status of the eea bc needs clarifying. (i said implied...)Jambo wrote:To obtain PR status one needs to meet the requirements in Regulation 15 which requires (unless the EEA national dies) 5 years of residence. The fact that the returning resident is considered a qualified person without exercising treaty rights doesn't mean he is considered holding PR. if A leads to B, having B doesn't mean you had A.wiggsy wrote: but he is already settled - he doesnt have to excersise treaty rights... thus its "implied" PR...
wiggsy wrote:
no so much in the eyes of the EU...
Read the carpenter case in full (Advocate Generals Text)... and then read the Zambrano Advocate Generals text... (he mentions a lot of cross border "frontier" working in that)
Carpenter above, zambrano AG text: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML
EVERY piece of EU case law can be applied to ANY circumstances if there are "simularities"... it all paints a hell of a big picture...
I just actually remembered the fact that I AM An administrator for a group on the EU schoolnet website... (http://www.eun.org/) ... that would be applying services to the EU... wouldnt it?
What im saying is the ag's opinion... He mentions "potential" movement... He also brings up human rights a lot... And in relation to point 4 of c109/01...nobodysperfect wrote:wiggsy wrote:
no so much in the eyes of the EU...
Read the carpenter case in full (Advocate Generals Text)... and then read the Zambrano Advocate Generals text... (he mentions a lot of cross border "frontier" working in that)
Carpenter above, zambrano AG text: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML
EVERY piece of EU case law can be applied to ANY circumstances if there are "simularities"... it all paints a hell of a big picture...
I just actually remembered the fact that I AM An administrator for a group on the EU schoolnet website... (http://www.eun.org/) ... that would be applying services to the EU... wouldnt it?
I have read the Carpenter & the Singh judgement and I do not see any mentions about their activity being a non economical activity unless I have missed the specific mentions. Zambrano is a a diff scenario all together as a minor child can not practice their treaty rights in any other member state until they are above a certain age. You will have no success relying on Zambrano+Singh for sure. You might be successful with Carpenter+ Singh however you will need to show some economical activity to qualify. I am not an expert but stating something based on my experience.
You might get your EEA FP based on Surinder Singh without any economical activity however if it is refused it will be a long battle for you. Make your choices wisely.
I still dont see your point. How would rejection of OP`s EEA FP would affect his human rights or be a concern for any potential movement to seek economical activity in the EU? The fundamentals of EEA directive is based around freedom of seeking economical activity within any member state which OP is already doing or able to do without an EEA FP for his family. Zambrano decision is for a minor child who can not practice their treaty rights but OP clearly can. If there is no economical activity the chances of getting the EEA FP is very thin unless this can be overturned by an ECJ.wiggsy wrote:What im saying is the ag's opinion... He mentions "potential" movement... He also brings up human rights a lot... And in relation to point 4 of c109/01...nobodysperfect wrote:wiggsy wrote:
no so much in the eyes of the EU...
Read the carpenter case in full (Advocate Generals Text)... and then read the Zambrano Advocate Generals text... (he mentions a lot of cross border "frontier" working in that)
Carpenter above, zambrano AG text: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 34:EN:HTML
EVERY piece of EU case law can be applied to ANY circumstances if there are "simularities"... it all paints a hell of a big picture...
I just actually remembered the fact that I AM An administrator for a group on the EU schoolnet website... (http://www.eun.org/) ... that would be applying services to the EU... wouldnt it?
I have read the Carpenter & the Singh judgement and I do not see any mentions about their activity being a non economical activity unless I have missed the specific mentions. Zambrano is a a diff scenario all together as a minor child can not practice their treaty rights in any other member state until they are above a certain age. You will have no success relying on Zambrano+Singh for sure. You might be successful with Carpenter+ Singh however you will need to show some economical activity to qualify. I am not an expert but stating something based on my experience.
You might get your EEA FP based on Surinder Singh without any economical activity however if it is refused it will be a long battle for you. Make your choices wisely.
Ity draws a big picture.
You can under the ag's opinions to add context
economical for who?nobodysperfect wrote:
The activity for a business/self employed person does not necessarily have to be profitable however it has to be economical.
Like I said, it all draws onto the picture of "free movement"...Movement and the classic (economic) rights to freedom of movement
69. It is trite law that, in order to be able to claim classic economic rights associated with the four freedoms, some kind of movement between Member States is normally required. Even in that context, however, it is noteworthy that the Court has accepted the importance of not hindering or impeding the exercise of such rights and has looked askance at national measures that might have a dissuasive effect on the potential exercise of the right to freedom of movement.
71. ....but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services’. (48).....
73. The Court has, indeed, already accepted some dilution of the notion that the exercise of rights requires actual physical movement across a frontier. Thus, in Alpine Investments,....
wiggsy wrote:nobodysperfect wrote:
The activity for a business/self employed person does not necessarily have to be profitable however it has to be economical.
IE: what if im a volunteer who goes to tech in a school in the EEA.
I am then aiding potential free movement within the EEA. aiding their profits ETC and helping others to setup their own lifes...
Extended holiday to Spain and come back with an EEA FP or code1 stamp. I would love that.wiggsy wrote:But what I'm saying is a court will take art 8 into consideration on appeal...
Regardless of legislation etc.
I understand that on singh I need to b employed in uks interpretation.... But note above text... Services included... So extended holidays?
Im just saying "possibilities", but the fact is... The uk interpretation is flawed on most laws.
