New Surinder Singh rules and a 3 month EU work contract

rosebead · Post by **rosebead** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:09 am

Hi,

I just found out about the new Surinder Singh rules starting 1 January 2014 about having to prove "integration" in the EU country that you are working in and I am worried. I managed to get a fixed term contract for 3 months work in Slovenia (which is part of the EU) starting in January 2014. I was planning to marry my Albanian boyfriend in Albania next month (he is currently in the UK illegally) and then both of us had planned to head straight to Slovenia and then afterwards back to the UK when my contract had ended. Previously I believe a fixed term contract of 3 months would have sufficed as exercising my EU treaty rights, so what do these new rules now mean for us, does anyone know?

The other problem is that I have a council flat and I don't think I can be absent from it for more than a few months or I could lose my tenancy. The plan was to pay 3-4 months rent in advance and then go to the EU temporarily. But if I understand the new Surinder Singh rules correctly, apparently I cannot keep another place of residence in the UK while I am abroad because my principal place of residence has to be in the EU, is that right?

I just don't understand how these new rules can be legal? EU citizens are required to be exercising their EU treaty rights (i.e. living and working in another EU country) to be able to bring their non-EU family members with them, and they are not required to prove their "integration" into their host country to do so because presumably that would impede "freedom of movement" in the EU. How can the UK government stipulate rules that are contrary to the idea of freedom of movement in the EU, is it even legal?

Should I still go ahead with my plans, what do you think of my chances? If my boyfriend obtained the equivalent of an EEA2 (i.e. temporary residence permit) in the EU country that I plan to work in, would it increase our chances of applying successfully for an EEA Family Permit from the UK? I am rather upset by all of this.

Davmck70 · Post by **Davmck70** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:01 am

I do not know much about the new SS rules but can comment on the council flat. Are you on any benefits (housing/council tax)? I would believe you do not lose your tenancy if you make payments as normal monthly unless you are on benefits or you default payments then there are chances you will lose the house.

Post by **Casa** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:50 am

I'm afraid you're right about the residency. With only 3 months work on a fixed contract and your 'main residence' still in the UK Regulation 9(3) will apply. It's without doubt going to be tougher.

According to regulation 9(3), the centre of a person’s life will be assessed by reference to:

“(a) the period of residence in the EEA State as a worker or self-employed person;

(b) the location of [the person]’s principal residence;

(c) the degree of integration of [the person] in the EEA State.”

euroguys · Post by **euroguys** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:36 am

These are interpretations of existing directives there legality will be questioned, there is no way to say what will happen but for a right to exist you for sure will need to exersize it and then apply, if necessary going to appeal and all the way to the European Court if we all were to just accept what any National Government decides without challenge then they will all act anyway they see fit for short term political gain.

Rights need defending or we will lose them what other choice is there.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:51 am

euroguys wrote:These are interpretations of existing directives there legality will be questioned, there is no way to say what will happen but for a right to exist you for sure will need to exersize it and then apply, if necessary going to appeal and all the way to the European Court if we all were to just accept what any National Government decides without challenge then they will all act anyway they see fit for short term political gain.

Rights need defending or we will lose them what other choice is there.

Or you could see it from what the OP's intent is, an attempt to circumvent UK immigration rules.

Jellybean105 · Post by **Jellybean105** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:34 pm

Why do you think people circumvent UK immigration rules?

Okay, there may be a few who abuse the system but majority of the people are genuine.
UK make it difficult for people to live with their loved ones even when the requirements are met. I have a genuine relationship and we went through the 'UK' immigration rules, applied for a spouse visa with the '£13,600' requirement.
But then we decided to come to Ireland to exercise my EU treaty rights because I was fed up of the way we were being treated after wasting so much money!

If what the OP is doing is legal, then questioning her intention is pointless.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:42 pm

Jellybean105 wrote:Why do you think people circumvent UK immigration rules?

Okay, there may be a few who abuse the system but majority of the people are genuine.
UK make it difficult for people to live with their loved ones even when the requirements are met. I have a genuine relationship and we went through the 'UK' immigration rules, applied for a spouse visa with the '£13,600' requirement.
But then we decided to come to Ireland to exercise my EU treaty rights because I was fed up of the way we were being treated after wasting so much money!

If what the OP is doing is legal, then questioning her intention is pointless.

Because it is!

The UK immigration rules are being circumvented you cannot deny that. The financial limits are there for a reason, even earning the required amount I cannot understand how one can form a proper face-to-face relationship, pay for flights, accom, visas etc.

Jellybean105 · Post by **Jellybean105** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:18 pm

Sorry, I'm not sure what you meant by how one can form face-to-face relationships. My husband was in the UK for 4 years before we got married. He was studying at the time and when he finished, we decided to apply for a spouse visa.

I believe the OP's boyfriend is in the UK.

I'm sure the financial requirement is there for a reason, but what about those who are earning well above that and still getting rejected? Thats really not fair.

The more the UK make it harder, the more people will try and get around it. But at the end of the day, its still legal.

357mag · Post by **357mag** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:57 pm

And why should it not be allowed to keep a flat somewhere else but still be resident in another EEA country?
My partner has a house in Philippines as well as apartments there, I have a housing association house in UK with my son and grandchild still living there but intend renting in Ireland as well.

Heard the expression wherever I lay my hat thats my home.

dalebutt · Post by **dalebutt** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:58 pm

The Danish immigration service confirms that, if a Danish citizen put themselves in a position to benefit from the Singh judgement, it will not be deemed as an attempt to circumvent the Danish immigration rules.

If it is legally done, how can it be wrong? It is a right, who wouldn't use it if they are in a position to do so?

dalebutt · Post by **dalebutt** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:46 pm

The case-law of the European Court of Justice shows that exercise of the right of free movement under EU law for the purpose of obtaining family reunification cannot be considered a circumvention of the Danish immigration legislation. What is crucial is that it is a genuine relationship and/or a genuine marriage/registered partnership/regular cohabitation and that the Union citizen/EEA national has exercised his/her right of free movement in another EU/EEA Member State in reality (read more about the Akrich judgment here).

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_t ... eu-law.htm

This is Denmark who supposedly have a strict and very restrictive immigration rules than the UK, the UK have on number of occasion seen as copying the pattern, for example the marriage age restriction before being ruled illegal was the Danes Idea.

rosebead · Post by **rosebead** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:58 pm

I agree, it is an EU treaty right, why should I not be entitled to exercise it like any other EU citizen. I am a full-time UK tax payer who contributes to the country I live in, I am self-sufficient and do not claim benefits, I can even support my partner on the modest income that I earn as my rent is affordable, but just I because earn below the threshold I cannot live in my own country (where I want to be) with the person I love. That, I consider inhumane. There are one or two very unhelpful replies here on this thread. I am not even sure why anyone would even be in this forum if they are opposed to the Surinder Singh route, because this is supposed to be a forum for people to seek and give advice about it.

Does anyone know whether there is a paragraph in the directive that specifically stipulates that an EU worker's principal residence MUST be in their host country in order that their non-EU family can accompany them? Do you think these new UK rules could be successfully challenged in the European courts?

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

New Surinder Singh rules and a 3 month EU work contract

New Surinder Singh rules and a 3 month EU work contract