EU reglerne står for skud ?

Her kan du dele links til interessante sider eller artikler med andre brugere.

Redaktører: ZB, AUG Board

DBS
Indlæg: 933
Tilmeldt: 23.08.2009 16:04:08
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af DBS » 04.02.2016 22:14:58

Nogle af de erfarede medlemmer der har en kommentar til dette ?

http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2016-02-0 ... menfoering

skaanebo
Indlæg: 11507
Tilmeldt: 09.06.2007 19:00:10
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af skaanebo » 04.02.2016 22:36:04

Interessant. Men det handler jo kun om den lille flig af EU-retten, der handler om, at man ikke nødvendigvis skal have lovligt ophold i landet, førend man kan søge om opholdskort efter EU-regler.

Hvis reglerne ændres, vil det således kun berøre dem, som er i et land illegalt.

DBS
Indlæg: 933
Tilmeldt: 23.08.2009 16:04:08
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af DBS » 05.02.2016 03:42:23

Tak for svar skaanebo.

Rasmusb
Indlæg: 10
Tilmeldt: 26.07.2012 12:54:20
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af Rasmusb » 05.02.2016 08:03:10

Kan det få nogen indflydelse hvis man allerede har fået ophold på baggrund af EU-reglerne?

skaanebo
Indlæg: 11507
Tilmeldt: 09.06.2007 19:00:10
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af skaanebo » 05.02.2016 08:42:49

Nej, for så har man jo allerede lovligt ophold.

Men lad os nu bare afvente og se, hvad det ender med.

sibb
Indlæg: 13
Tilmeldt: 15.04.2010 20:16:37
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af sibb » 05.02.2016 16:40:03

Vil det betyde at man ikke længere kan flytte til Tyskland og få familiesammenføring efter EU-reglerne og derefter flytte til Danmark? Jeg er ikke helt med. Det lyder som om at jeg så som dansker der er flyttet til Tyskland skal til at søge efter nationale tyske regler :(
Dommen fastslog, at Danmark ikke længere kunne kræve, at statsborgere fra lande uden for EU skulle have lovligt ophold i et andet EU-land for at få ret til familiesammenføring med en EU-borger, der opholdt sig i Danmark i kraft af reglerne om fri bevægelighed. En italiener med midlertidigt arbejde i Danmark skulle altså have ret til familiesammenføring efter EU-reglerne med en ægtefælle fra f.eks. et afrikansk land. Uden at behøve at leve op til de særlige danske regler som 24-års-reglen og tilknytningskravet.

Eller at en dansk statsborger kunne omgå de danske familiesammenføringsregler ved at flytte til Sverige eller et andet EU-land i en kortere periode og derefter få familiesammenføring til Danmark efter EU-reglerne.
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/politi ... rokost-med

Det er noget skidt.

skaanebo
Indlæg: 11507
Tilmeldt: 09.06.2007 19:00:10
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af skaanebo » 05.02.2016 16:53:00

Journalisterne har ikke sat sig ordentligt ind i sagerne. De ved dårligt, hvad det handler om, og refererer bare politikere, som gerne vil score nogle billige point ved at få det til at lyde som om, at EU-reglerne bliver helt bandlyst.

Det sker ikke. Det handler indtil videre alene om, at man ikke vil kunne omgå de nationale regler om, at man skal have lovligt ophold i landet for at kunne indgive en ansøgning om ophold. Dvs., hvis man er illegal i et land, så vil man ikke længere kunne søge om opholdskort efter EU-regler alene fordi, man er gift med en EU-borger. Men har man et gyldigt visum eller en gyldig opholdstilladelse eller opholdskort til et Schengenland, så er man per definition også lovligt i landet.

uidroot
Indlæg: 179
Tilmeldt: 08.04.2015 02:41:56
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af uidroot » 18.02.2016 21:11:20

what would happen to spouses who already have resident permit under old rules, will they be affected?

mh
Indlæg: 9980
Tilmeldt: 25.09.2007 11:20:33
Geografisk sted: Istanbul, Tyrkiet/Tyskland
Kontakt:

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af mh » 19.02.2016 13:02:35

No of course not. A permanet residence right can only be cancelled if the person commits a serious crime.
mh

Thomas T
Indlæg: 276
Tilmeldt: 07.10.2010 23:58:32
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af Thomas T » 20.02.2016 21:16:25

Nogen der kan forklare hvad det her helt præcist får af konsekvenser:
En anden særlig dansk sejr handler om, at der som følge af den britiske aftale bliver gjort op med den såkaldte Malmø-model, der gør det muligt at omgå den danske udlændingelov og få hurtigere familiesammenføring.

- Vi får Metock-dommen rullet tilbage. Nu ruller vi retstilstanden tilbage til det, den var, før Metock-dommen blev afsagt, siger Løkke med henvisning til den EU-dom, der begrænsede Danmarks muligheder for at administrere reglerne for familiesammenføring af EU-borgere inden for EU.
http://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2016-02-20 ... t-tilfreds

skaanebo
Indlæg: 11507
Tilmeldt: 09.06.2007 19:00:10
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af skaanebo » 21.02.2016 07:45:52

Er allerede forklaret i ovenstående kommentar.

sibb
Indlæg: 13
Tilmeldt: 15.04.2010 20:16:37
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af sibb » 25.02.2016 12:21:43

Her er en længere redegørelse.

Om forfatteren:
Steve Peers is a Professor in the School of Law at the University of Essex. His research interests include EU Constitutional and Administrative, Justice and Home Affairs, External Relations, Human Rights, Internal Market and Social Law, and he is the editor of EU Law Analysis, where this post originally appeared.
Hans analyse:
EU citizens’ family members

Under the EU citizens’ Directive, currently EU citizens can bring with them to another Member State their spouse or partner, the children of both (or either) who are under 21 or dependent, and the dependent parents of either. This applies regardless of whether the family members are EU citizens or not. No further conditions are possible, besides the prospect of a refusal of entry (or subsequent expulsion) on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (on which, see below).

In principle EU law does not apply to UK citizens who wish to bring non-EU family members to the UK, so the UK is free to put in place restrictive rules in those cases (which it has done, as regards income requirements and language rules). However, the CJEU has ruled that UK citizens can move to another Member State (the ‘host Member State’) and be joined by non-EU family members there, under the more generous rules in the EU legislation. Then they can move back to the UK (the ‘home Member State’) with their family members, now invoking the free movement rights in the Treaties. This is known in practice (in the UK) as the ‘Surinder Singh route’, because of the name of the case which first established this principle. In 2014, the CJEU clarified two points about this scenario (as discussed by Chiara Berneri here): (a) it was necessary to spend at least three months in the host Member State exercising EU law rights and residing with the family member, before coming back; and (b) the EU citizens’ Directive applied by analogy to govern the situation of UK citizens who return with their family members.

In his 2014 speech, David Cameron announced his desire to end all distinction between EU citizens and UK citizens as regards admission of non-EU family members, by allowing the UK to impose upon the EU citizens the same strict conditions that apply to UK citizens. Since this would have deterred the free movement of those EU citizens who have non-EU family members, there is a good chance that it would have required not just a legislative amendment but a Treaty change. (Note that according to the CJEU, EU free movement law does not just require the abolition of discrimination between UK and other EU citizens, but also the abolition of non-discriminatory ‘obstacles’ to free movement).

However, the deal does not go this far. The main Decision states that:

‘In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to prevent abuse of rights or fraud, such as the presentation of forged documents, and address cases of contracting or maintaining of marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State or for bypassing national immigration rules applying to third country nationals.’

The Commission Declaration then states that it will make a proposal to amend the citizens’ Directive:

‘to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to the third country national.’

That Declaration also states that the Commission will clarify that:

‘Member States can address specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family member where residence in the host Member State has not been sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules’; and

‘The concept of marriage of convenience - which is not protected under Union law – also covers a marriage which is maintained for the purpose of enjoying a right of residence by a family member who is not a national of a Member State.’

It seems clear that these ‘clarifications’ will not be included in the legislative proposal, since the declaration later concludes (emphasis added):

‘These clarifications will be developed in a Communication providing guidelines on the application of Union law on the free movement of Union citizens.’

Let’s examine the planned legislative amendments, then the guidelines which will provide ‘clarifications’. The amendments will exclude two separate categories of non-EU citizens from the scope of the citizens’ Directive: those who did not have prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying an EU citizen who has moved to another Member State; and those who marry such an EU citizen after he or she has moved to a Member State. For these people, national immigration law will apply.

The background to this proposal is CJEU case law. In 2003, in the judgment in Akrich, the CJEU ruled that Member States could insist that non-EU family members had previously been lawfully resident in the Member State concerned (previously no such rule appeared to exist). But in 2008, in Metock, the CJEU overturned this ruling and said that a prior legal residence requirement was not allowed.

Several points arise. First, the basic definition: what is lawful residence exactly? Presumably it means more than lawful presence, ie a stay of three months on the basis of a valid visa or visa waiver. But what about ambiguous cases, such as a pending asylum application or appeal? EU legislation says that asylum-seekers can usually stay until the application fails (if it fails), and then during the appeal (subject to some big exceptions). According to the CJEU, the EU’s main rules on irregular migrants therefore don’t apply to asylum-seekers whose application is pending.

Secondly, it’s odd to refer to national law alone, since sometimes EU law governs the admission of non-EU nationals. Even the UK (along with Ireland) is bound by the first-phase EU asylum law, and by the EU/Turkey association agreement. Denmark is bound by the latter treaty. And all other Member States are bound by the second-phase asylum law, along with EU legislation on admission of students and researchers and some categories of labour migrants (the highly-skilled, seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees).

Thirdly, it’s arguable that the EU principle of non-discrimination applies. That would mean, for instance, that if a German woman already in the UK married her American husband, the UK would have to treat her the same as a British woman in the same situation – but no worse. This would in fact be relevant to every Member State – there’s nothing in this part of the deal that limits its application to the UK. (One important point of detail is whether all Member States would be obliged to apply the new rules on ‘prior lawful residence’ and ‘marriage after entry of the EU citizen’, or whether they could choose to waive one or both of those rules. The EU citizens’ Directive already states that Member States can apply more liberal standards if they wish to).

Finally, the consequences of the rule will need to be clearer in the future legislative amendments. Does the exclusion from the scope of the Directive mean that the family member is excluded forever from the scope of the citizens’ Directive – even if the person concerned is admitted pursuant to national immigration law? That would mean that national immigration law (or EU immigration legislation, in some cases) would continue to govern issues such as the family member’s access to employment or benefits, or subsequent permanent residence. It’s also not clear what happen to children such as the step-child of the EU citizen, or a child that was born to the EU and non-EU citizen couple while living in a third country.

Could this legislative amendment violate the EU Treaties? In its judgment in Metock, the Court referred almost entirely to the wording of the citizens’ Directive. It mainly referred to the Treaties when concluding that the EU had the competence to regulate the status of EU citizens’ third-country national family members. But it also referred to the Treaty objective of creating an ‘internal market’, as well as the ‘serious obstruct[ion]’ to the exercise of freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, if EU citizens could not lead a ‘normal family life’. It must therefore be concluded that there is some possibility that the revised rules would be invalid for breach of EU free movement law.

Would the amendment violate the EU Charter right to family life? That’s unlikely. While the right to family life is often invoked to prevent expulsions of family members, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights gives great leeway to Member States to refuse admission of family members, on the grounds that the family could always live ‘elsewhere’ – as the CJEU has itself acknowledged (EP v Council). There is some possibility, though, that the CJEU would be reluctant to follow that case law (EP v Council concerns families entirely consisting of non-EU nationals) in the context of free movement: the idea that you could go away and enjoy your family life somewhere else is antithetical to the logic of free movement.

As for the ‘clarifications’ in future guidelines, they will of course not be binding. They first of all refer to cases where an EU citizen has moved to another Member State and come back to the home State. The definition of what constitutes a ‘sufficiently genuine’ move to another country is set out in the case law (three months’ stay with a family member) and mere guidelines cannot overturn this.

It should be noted that the Surinder Singh case law is in any event derived from the Treaty. This line of case law does not accept that such movement between Member States is an ‘evasion’ of national law – as long as free movement rights are genuinely exercised with a family member for a minimum time. The CJEU also usually assumes (see Metock, for instance) that a ‘marriage of convenience’ cannot apply to cases where there is a genuine relationship, even if an immigration advantage is gained. (The Commission has released guidelines already on the ‘marriage of convenience’ concept: see analysis by Alina Tryfonidou here).

Having said that, the planned legislative changes will complicate the plans of people who wish to move to another Member State with their non-EU family and then move back, since national immigration law will apply to their move to the host Member State. It will be important to see how the legislative amendments address the transitional issues of people who have already moved to a host Member State before the new rules apply. Can the home Member State say, possibly based on the Commission’s ‘guidance’ (which might be issued before the new legislation is adopted) that those families must now obtain lawful residence in the host State for the non-EU family member, before the non-EU family member can come to the home State?
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.dk/2016/0 ... -deal.html

original kilde:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... al-muster/

Thomas T
Indlæg: 276
Tilmeldt: 07.10.2010 23:58:32
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af Thomas T » 25.02.2016 21:52:35

Tak for det, sibb. Det er jo en noget anden sag end hvad skaanebo siger, og mere i tråd med hvad diverse politikere har været ude og udtale sig om. At visum fremover ikke regnes for "lovligt ophold" river reelt det meste af tæppet væk under EU-modellen for familiesammenføring. Desværre.

mh
Indlæg: 9980
Tilmeldt: 25.09.2007 11:20:33
Geografisk sted: Istanbul, Tyrkiet/Tyskland
Kontakt:

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af mh » 25.02.2016 22:23:33

Det kan ikke forenes med retten til fri bevægelighed, hvis EU-borgeren ikke kan flytte til et andet EU-land MED sin ægtefælle, medmindre denne ægtefælle har haft opholdstilladelse til et EU-land. I betragtning af at det kan tage månedsvis at få svar på anmodning om forhåndstilsagn om et EU-opholdskort vil det forhindre EU-borgeren i at flytte med sin ægtefælle/familiemedlemmer.

Og det er da heller ikke det, han skriver. DERFOR er det stadig lovligt og muligt at få sin ægtefælle med til et andet EU-land på et almindeligt turistvisum, og så anmode om EU-opholdskortet efter ankomst - forudsat naturligvis at man opfylder kravet om job/studie/tilstrækkelige midler.
mh

Thomas T
Indlæg: 276
Tilmeldt: 07.10.2010 23:58:32
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: EU reglerne står for skud ?

Indlæg af Thomas T » 27.02.2016 18:30:30

Jeg har måske ikke forstået teksten ordentligt. Måske nogen kan hjælpe mig:
The amendments will exclude two separate categories of non-EU citizens from the scope of the citizens’ Directive: those who did not have prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying an EU citizen who has moved to another Member State; and those who marry such an EU citizen after he or she has moved to a Member State. For these people, national immigration law will apply.
Hvordan skal den sætning forstås? Det han siger er jo "Dem som ikke havde lovligt ophold i en medlemsstat inden de giftede sig med en EU-borger som er flyttet til en anden medlemsstat; og dem som gifter sig med en sådan EU-borger efter han eller hun er flyttet til en medlemsstat." Er det ikke det samme han siger på 2 forskellige måder? Eller har jeg misforstået noget?

Besvar
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable