- 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, Administrator
What is her nationality and what exactly do you mean by 'working on her work permit'? If you mean that you are a dependant/family member of an EEA national what sort of visa are you on exactly? Is it the Residence Card/Permit or on some Work Permit visa?geoffsinclair wrote:...My wife is not British but lives in the UK and I am working on her work permit...
Infact their entire reply is riddled with mistakes. I will get back to it one by one when time permits.tt wrote:My confidence in Europa signpost service has been a little dented in that they have claimed that (in their third scenario) non-EU Citizens who receive a long-term resident permit (after 5 years) get a right to travel freely within the EU, but that it apples only to the EU countries that comprise the Schengen single travel area.
Infact, it applies to all the EU countries except the UK, Ireland and Denmark.
The 47 pages is actually the law in the EU. And is nicely available in quite a few languages if English is not enough.geoffsinclair wrote:Right, they expect me to carry around a 47 page document and try to convince immigration officals...right. Can you imagine me trying to convince an immigration officer/police official that this piece of paper - in English no less - allows me the right to travel freely in ALL of the EU countries? I must be living in a different EU then.
It has been shown over and over again on this website that most Schengen embassies are either unaware of or else regularly and routinely flout the immigration laws of their respective countries as and when it suits them.The threads I have read on this forum are dead wrong, I have asked the Schengen visa issuing embassies and they have all confirmed that non-EU nationals listed on Annex II still need a visa to enter Schengen space. Now emotions aside, but whom should I believe, the Schengen embassies or the OISC registered members of this forum?
Many Schengen countries have transposed the directive into law in their respective countries, so it is not something to be "interpreted" by some beaurocrat...it is the law. As I stated above, many Schengen embassies are either unaware the immigration laws of their countries or else couldn't care less.Wrong, the Directive 2004/38 is being negatively interpreted by the Schengen issuing Embassies, and I DO NEED a visa to enter Schengen space. I know that the Signpost people say that the spirit of the Directive is supposed to allow visa free travel for non-EU spouses, but the truth is that ANNEX II countries still need a visa and the Schengen Acquis has been around for a longer time than the Directive and that is what embassies are relying on.
It is naive to think that Directive is a magic potion in reality, in terms of policy, EU border and immigration officals as well as airline check in clerks are very skeptical, its their job. If that was the case then the Work Permit.com website would have the Directive 38/2004 promoted in a screaming neon headline banner, instead they agree with the negative interpretation of the embassies as I have stated above.It has been shown over and over again on this website that most Schengen embassies are either unaware of or else regularly and routinely flout the immigration laws of their respective countries as and when it suits them.
The way that the Directive has been interpreted here is to give freedom of movement, in a visa waiver manner which is inaccurate. This interpretation is an opinion based on the law, the embassies are also giving their opinion on the law. It is an ambiguous position, hence the lack of clarity despite the very individual circumstances of case law (Commission v Spain) and the delusional advice being handed out by the EU Signpost service. The EU as we all know is not a very friendly place.Many Schengen countries have transposed the directive into law in their respective countries, so it is not something to be "interpreted" by some beaurocrat...it is the law. As I stated above, many Schengen embassies are either unaware the immigration laws of their countries or else couldn't care less.
Emotions... and sarcasm aside, you should believe and do whatever you think is the right and easy thing for you.geoffsinclair wrote:Now emotions aside, but whom should I believe, the Schengen embassies or the OISC registered members of this forum?
There really is no ambiguity over here. If you let authorities to erode into your rights, they will have a field day doing so. But if you are someone for whom the whisper of your right is enough to get you into a fight-for-your-right mode, then no amount of websites or embassies will prevent you from getting it. But, hey, if even a 47 page printout is too much of a hassle.... I can understand that too.This interpretation is an opinion based on the law, the embassies are also giving their opinion on the law. It is an ambiguous position, hence the lack of clarity despite the very individual circumstances of case law (Commission v Spain) and the delusional advice being handed out by the EU Signpost service
YawnBut if you are someone for whom the whisper of your right is enough to get you into a fight-for-your-right mode...
Yes encourage others to act as guinea pigs while you post bogus examples of people crossing into Schengen space without a visa. Keep it up guys, you wont get into trouble.I will continue with a few examples of court cases etc so that courageous "naives" might find it useful will not be deterred in trying to enter the Schengen or any other EU countries without a visa in the presence of a valid Residence Card over
Aaah! Yawn... a natural reaction... that developed almost a day after you read that post...Wonderful! (I know from all the PMs you send me that you did read it almost just after I posted it.) You are a quick one, aren't you?geoffsinclair wrote:The yawn was just a natural reaction to your post
You know... That actually might work. Alternatively, you can try substituting 'Docterror' with 'Directive2004/38' and it still might work as well."but Monsieur, Docterror said it was ok?"