Metock case and the influence on the danish inmigration law

[zandvoortzandvoort]

Yes, it would mean that everybody has the right to get a recidance card, even if you have not exerciced the right of free movement. But I am not too sure that that will be the answer, becouse the agreement was, that that right had to have been exerciced! And that that discrimination therfore, was allowed by the Higher courd of Justice in Luxembourg untill now! But if that right willl be given to you only if you should have children, whom are Dutch, or els, is not too clear to me. What about the people whom have no children than? I thought that it had to be given to every member of the Union, becouse I believe the question is also asked, what to do about that discrimination and that that discriminatiobn could no longer be allowed? Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I understand?

And as far as the floodgates of wich our crazy Geert Wilders schreams and shouts, there are, and there will be, no floodgates, for the 5 years cards issued to EU citicins and ther spouses are a lot less, than was expected. But, they are foreigner haters from their own guts and conciance! And they pretend that we dont need them, and that it is better to step out of the Union, let them do it. I dont care about a country that is so wrong in governing their own people, and we do need foreigneirs, if only to help us fill up the jobs in the future! Dont they know that than, and I am not even a politicien! All this is an effect of for instance, the problems that especially Marokkan people, have coused, here in our country, were is it coming from in yours?

[mh1]

Well, in the present case the question is whether the CHILD would be deprived of it's rights as a citizen of the EU, if its parent would not be given the right to reside with it. So the basic question is actually whether it is necessary to cross a boarder to another EU-state in order to obtain one's right as a EU-citizen.

If the answer to that is no if you are a child, it MUST also be no if you are an adult (says the lawyer=me). That is: our rights as EU-citizen should not be dependent on our moving out of our national state to another EU-state, but should be our rights irrespective of where we reside and whether we ever leave our national state or not.

If the outcome of the present case is that Zambrano gets his residence-card it will not automatically mean that spouses of EU-citizens who have not exercised the right of free movement, will automatically get the same right, but I'm quite sure there will soon be a case where a spouse will claim the same right.

[Kim P. Nyberg]

There is a demand of actually exercising the free movement. That was the EU-Court decision in the two Dutch cases 35/82 and 36/82, Morson and Jhanjan. And again in case 64/96 and 65/96, Vecker and Jacquet, the Court underlined, that one cannot refer to EU-regulation, in cases where the movement has not been exercised.

So, if the family in the new case has not been moving, they cannot call their rights according EU-regulations.

[zandvoortzandvoort]

I joined a meeting yesterday, where Immigration Service informed about the rules. In accordance to this very topic, the EU-expert Michael Bernbom replied, that the length is not a factor to them. They focus on the documentation first of all. He added, that if a person has been staying in another member state for 6 month or more, then of course time length is a factor. But for short stays, it is not.

Case 1. My partner was there only short, but it had been regonised by the courds to be a proven fact.
Case 2. That partner had been there for a longer time.

A question? I like your opinion on these two cases with the same conditions? There was one and the same guestion in the case of two cases, the question played a role in the higher courd of justice in my country, Holland, in two cases. They had to prove to Holland that they were entiteled to recidance under EU law. There are two couples whom stayed in Belgium. One as entrepeneur and the other as a patient in the hospital. The entrepenaur from Holland had registered and had received a title and a card card for 5 months, to start with! Witch was accepted by all the courds, as proven that she had used her community rights. The Dutch man from the hospital had not done so, at all, untill he left Belgium!

Case 1. The first couple went to Belgium together and tried to register the foureign partner. To no avail,
due to circumstances, wich I will not update you on right now. To make a long story short. The
first couple were denied his status, becouse he had failed to register in Belgium.

Case 2. The other couple whom had never registered while being there, had stayed 5 months and could
prove that by a letter from the hospital in wich it was stated that she too, had stayed there in a
gasthouse. He, the Dutch never regestered, bur the other Dutch did!

Now the courd had said in the first couples case, that they knew that he had been there, there was no question about that for the courds. It had been proven that he had been there. After they were finnished a couple of days later, without getting him registered, they went back together by train to Holland, After a couple of days, I, the Union citizen, had than returned to Belgium to go look for work in Belgium, and she also lived there, renting an appertment there too,, and becouse she went back there, for some time, and the partner stayed behind in Holland, all of a sudden, we had not made use of the rights lead down by the directory? Becouse we had not travelled back together, when I were finnished in Belgium, with my right of exersice and finally returned to Holland! We did make that going back travel together, however, at an earlier date. But they said no, when you go back, you have to do that together!

Had we been able to produce a regisration document from Belgium for him, there would have been no problem. But he never registered and could not prove a document to that accord, so he had not proven to have the right of recidance in Belgium!
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Than in the second case, and dont forget, these are the same udges whom give sentence, , becouse we have higher courd with only about 6 udges, whom have given udgement in both cases.

In the second case, the demanding party was given the short turm of 3 months period in wich she did not have to prove anything but her pasport and her wedding cetificate.So only in the second case, the wife of the Union citicen was given that right, becouse they said that she had that right anyhow under this artikel, see below, and they travelled back together to Holland, after the man was released by the hospital: Read and weep?

The courd said that under this artikel 2 lid 2, the woman allready had the right, to stay in Belgium any how.

In Dutch.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 123:NL:PDF
Artikel 2
Definities
2) "familielid":
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
In Danish:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 123:DA:PDF
Artikel 2
Definitioner
2) "familiemedlem":

In English.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 123:EN:PDF
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:

2) "Family member" means:
(a) the spouse;

Also dont forget that in the first case, the udges did regonize that the foreingh partner had exally bin in Belgium, becouse they stated that in their verdict.
Both had proven to be there, and both had, the man had tried, but the woman had done a registration.

So, in the second hospital case, the two people had stayed there within the free period of the first three months and they both had not registered. They stayed longer and becouse of that, artikel 7 is at stake, they had proven that, and were in a hospital, had enaugh income, and the Dutch man had insurance, she did not! And the courd dicided that they were entiteled to be there under there free rights of the 3 first months, as EU civilians, he was receiving services as a EU member in that Belgium, member state. And therfore entiteled under the Directive.

How is it than possible that in the first case they did not give the forein partner of the EU Community worker that same right?

One gets a right to settlement in Holland after the return of the Union civilian and the other foreign partner,and he had proven to have been there, just as she did, with the gasthouse papers, and we, with the courds admitting to our given proof, we were there under the same curcumstances as the other couple, the first 3 free three months, and were not been given that right, becouse he could not produce that registration document!

She too, had not registered! But they said as you can read above, that that was not a reqierment with case two! With case one, they said that it was a requierment! How is that possible? I personally think that they made a major error, and that cost us our residance card! And legal right to be together legally in my country of birth. Were as the other couples wife got it! Two verdicts and both different! Under exactly the samen conditions.

To get an honest answer, one has to consider this, In the first case, We only produced the proofe that we had travelled in and out and that we had tried and failed to register him. And in the second case, she proved that she had been there for a longer time, than even the first tree months. But, she als did not registrer, not even after the first three monts had passed!
But in both verdicts the lenght of time was not spoken of. So how can this be then?

But, than keep paying attention.

The question here now is this,
why has nr. 1, have to register, and thereby prove to the courd, according to these udges, that had he done so, only then, he would have had a right to be there?

And in the case of nr. 2 ,that person did not have to do that?

Exactly in the same circumstances of going there, within the 3 months that both according to the directive, dont have to do more than have these two document with them, pasports end wedding certificate, or prove that you are a couple?!

This, can not be right. And there has been a breach of community rights there for nr. 1. Were on the other hand, the law had rightly been given, to nr. 2

Do those mistakes take place in Denmark too, and if so, what did you people do about it?

Now in the case of such a mistake, and we cant go no further, becouse there were no prejudiciele qestions asked, and therfore in Union right, the courds are no more avalible and that verdict is the end of the line! For we alone can not ask Luxembourg for such an answer, were can we go to get this udgment nullifi,d?

This was a retoric on two cases and I wished to show you how we too, suffer, but maby more than you people from the hands of our Law keepers, for even in the highest legion, thay make many, and in this case big mistakes. As I said before, now we have to do it all over again!


To end with,

mh

, you wrote,

the case of the he outcome of the Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano-case will be really interesting. In short the question is whether the non-EU-citizen parent of a child who is a EU-citizen, and who has never lived anywhere else but it's national state (that is: have never exercised the right of free movement), may have a right to reside in his child's national state, based on the child's right to enjoy family life. If the answer would be 'yes' it would cause the Danish DF to howl and scream, even though it would not mean that the (in)famous floodgates would be opened.

In this case the casus is asked by the people of the Belgium governement,, and in Belgium the children are by law in the same position as a Union civillian, so the outcome will be, that this counts in Belgium, but not anywere els in the Union. These people have the law on their side in their childrens native born country. And their parients will win the case, but nobody else will benefit from that. That is what I expect to happien.

With thanks, again, I am curieus about your reactions?

Greetings from me.

[skaanebo]

Sorry but why do you need to test the borders of the principle of free movement?

Needless to say, testing borders is a risky and timeconsuming and unnerving affair.

Whereas it is straight forward to get a residence card if you follow the established path, i.e. settle and register with the authorities in the host country before moving on to your own country. Everything comes down to a few easy points to remember and your spouse is guaranteed to get a residence card upon your return to your home country. So why test the borders? It must be for reasons beyond getting a residence card for it is in fact quite easy to get if, as I wrote, you follow the trotten path.

[zandvoortzandvoort]

Thank you, skaanebo, but did I test any borders? He could not get his residance at the time in Belgium, becouse the marriage documents were lost and the Belgium people did not accept the fotocopy,s wich they should have, but didnent. My husband was very sick at the time and stayed in the hospital in Holland for long and due to so many reasons we agreed to put in for the EU card here in Holland. We knew that we could prove that he had been there and had come back with me, so we risked it, yes it was tricky, but at the time we could do no different. Ofcourse we regret that now, but we do it over and this time, they will not do that to us again, we have all the papers and we will do it as they want it, eventhough the directive says, that it is not needed to show the valid document, it should also be accepted in fotocopy,s and they should allow you a reasonable time, to get the official document(s).

When the Metock came out, many people, including myself believed that that rule of being allowed to go to a country with your partner, without them having prevesly lived anywere in Europe before , also counts for us when we come back to the country you are from.

Why, becouse you are not only coming back to your country as a national, but also as a EU community worker and therefore your own country is also a gastmemberstate just like Zweden for you people, en should therefore also allow you to come back and than grant our spuses, just as in Zweden, the right to come and ask for a status. This debate is still not over here after the outcome of most cases and they were all denied, becouse they had not been there together. So becouse of that fact, and many still believe that it is a wrong intrepertation of the Metock arrest, becouse in Metock it says, if you go to a country of wich you are not a national of, they believe that it counts in every member state, but not in our country of wich we are a national, it is quite confusion to get the picture clear.

One political party, D66, has asked written questions to the European Commission about that, becouse according to that Europarlementmember, her name is Sophia in,t veld, it should than also count for you if you come back to the country, you are a national of, becouse your coming back there, after having used that right and where in the Directive, it says that should you as a EU member after having been given your community rights, by that other member state, it than can not count in your country simply becouse ypu are a national of that your home state? If the Directive stated stated that you are forced to exercise that right in a another memberstate TOGETHER, I could than believe it, but to me and with me many others, including lawyers an some udges by now, it says that if you as a Union civilian has exercided that right, you are granted those rights! It das not say, you have to do it together!

There was only ONE udge here in Holland, whom said in one verdict that we were right and that if you come back to your native country, you had the right to ask your partner than to come to you in Holland and that man was granted a visa in Rabat, Marocco, and they never exercided that right together and he was not even here when she went to Belgium, he was in Marocco at that time, the udge also said that there was no such requierment in the Directive, to force you to stay there together! That it was the right for Union membersif they wanted too, and that a big differance! We exercise that right and that gives your family rights to be with you, after having gained that right! Our rights as a Union civilian! Not theirs!

When the man came to Holland on the visa, the governement then ignored the verdict and denied him the residance card. They are stil fighting it in courd, but have gone to Belgium, to do it over too. And when they come back they will then put in a new reguest, just like us. But the debate is not over yet!

They, the IND, Ministry of justice, also demended that later in one case, that if you wanted to bring back any other familymember to Holland after you had gotten your residance card alreaddy, that person had to be denied, becouse they too did not live together with the Union civilian in that other member state! But that was not approved of by the courd and accepted that it was not a requierment. If that is not a requierment, were is it written than that your spouse has to be with you according to our governement, and i think that that udge was the only udge in our legal system that understand that too!?

He or she can go there, if they want to go and live there together, with you, but it dus not say that it is a must and you have no choice, but to do that! You have ther right, but if you dont do so, who says that you have to thain, again I ask you people?

This law is about us getting that right and therefore, after goming back to your country, your spouse and the rest of the family gained that right. Did nobody ever look al that same subject in Denmark than? That really surpises me! The Metock is confusing too, becouse the question there was if the 4 man whom wanted to live in Ireland, had to have a prior recidance card. And their spouses were from England and not from Ireland. Than it was said that if you go to a memberstate of wich you are not a national of you not needed too have that requierment.

But were than in the Directive is it written that you have to exercise that right together than? Whom can point that out in written EU Law? Or in any Arrest of the Higher courd of Justice? The question only was, if your spouses needed to have lived in an other member state before going to an other member state! You are not forced to be together! Thats the difference! I am sure that that question can not be answered by anyone whom reads this, , becouse it is not written down anywere, anyhow!

The answer from the European commission should come in this week ,and than will explain if Holland is also a gastmember state for us, after coming back to it and after having used your community rights? I can hardly waith. These are the questins:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

FORM FOR TABLING PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

To the: COUNCIL
COMMISSION

ORAL QUESTIONS

Oral Question with debate (Rule 42)
Question Time (Rule 43)
WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Written Question (Rule 44)
Priority Written Question (Rule 44 (4))

AUTHOR(S):

Sophia In t Veld

SUBJECT:
(please specify)

Family reunification under Directive 2004/38/EC

TEXT:

Mrs K., a Dutch citizen who has lived in Belgium for 4,5 months, invokes the right to family reunification under the 2004/38/EC Directive on Freedom of Movement, in order to be able to live in the Netherlands with her husband, a third country national. However, their request has been denied by the Dutch court, arguing that no right to family reunification exists as the couple has not previously lived together in another EU Member State; the Dutch court does not accept her stay in Belgium alone by living in another EU Member State. In dealing with the request, the Dutch court therefore applies the stricter Dutch laws. The court maintains that as the couple has not lived together in another EU Member State previously, there are no entitlements. This seems to be in contradiction with the Metock ruling that states that it is no requirement for a couple to have lived together in another Member State in order to be entitled to family reunification. Moreover, the court claims that the couple had no intention to settle in Belgium, and put the burden of proof on her.

1. Does the Commission agree that courts do not have freedom to decide whether or not to comply with ECJ jurisprudence, and that Dutch courts are under obligation to apply the Metock ruling unabridged?

2. Does the Commission agree that Mrs K., by living in Belgium, qualified for the right to family reunification under Directive 2004/38/EC, and that the Dutch courts cannot, therefore, impose the additional requirement of having lived together in another EU Member State?

3. Does the Commission agree that the burden of proof is with the Dutch courts, not on the individual citizen, and that the Dutch courts should therefore demonstrate whether that citizen intended to settle in another Member State?

4. Does the Commission agree that by giving Dutch citizens who lived in another Member State another treatment than those who have not, this constitute an implicit discrimination on grounds of nationality, and this must be addressed in the next revision of the 2004/38 Directive on Freedom of Movement?

Signature(s): Date: 12.10.2010, Sophia in,t veld, D66.

Yes, I know how easy it is, but at the time, me, and a lot of people believed that, and therefore so many people, asked for the residance card and now the highest courd has said no, several times by now. We still do not believe that it also dont counts for the country you are a national of, but to be sure, my husband and I are already planning to go and do ot over toghether this time. Wich is relly a crazy thing, for we had proven to have been there together in the first case! And that is exactly wat they ask! But, what to do, the truth will come out one day, about the need to exercise that right by force, together or not?

Read good, you have the right to travel together and live in a other member state, but were did you people read, that you have to do that by force? You have the right!

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... 152_en.htm

Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States

The Union has adopted a Directive on the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the Member States, which brings together the piecemeal measures found in the complex body of legislation that has governed this matter to date. The new measures are designed, among other things, to encourage Union citizens to exercise their right to move and reside freely within Member States, to cut back administrative formalities to the bare essentials, to provide a better definition of the status of family members, to limit the scope for refusing entry or terminating the right of residence and to introduce a new right of permanent residence

[fundiver199]

Dear zandvoortzandvoort

It is very difficult to comment on a decision in a specific case without having access to all relevant information in the case and in particular the written dicision made by an authority.

When danish people have their applications refused, I always ask them to transfer from this open forum to the email counseling of ÆUG, which then request, that they send a copy of the written decision of e.g. Danish Immigration Service, so that the councellor can read it with his own eyes.

Now the councellors of ÆUG do not not speak dutch language, so I will not suggest that to you. But surely there must be someone in Holland, who do, and who can help you with your case?

I find it very interesting to hear about the practice and discussions in Holland, but because of the language problem, this is hardly the right forum to solve a specific case like your own.

As I have written already, I don´t think there in any dought - at least not in my mind - that it is a necessary condition for using EU-rights in your country, that you lived with your spouse in another EU-country, and that you and your spouse moved together to your own country.

However it should not be a condition, that your spouse had any kind of paper issued in the other country like a residence card. So if dutch authorities have based their decision in your case mainly on the fact, that your husband did not have a belgium residence card, when you moved to Holland, then you should probably challenge that decision at a higher dutch authority (if possible) or in the court.

[zandvoortzandvoort]

I understand what you are saying, however I mearly told you people to inform you on issues that concernes as all, there is one thing however that you did noot commend on? What do you think about the questions asked by Sopia in,t Veld?
that very subject that I talked about? That I miss in your reaction to me? And there are some questions too, that you do not answer? I would love to here the answeres to them? Like the question, have you Danish ever considered, that it is not requiered to have lived together in that member state, like how most of you people always go to Zweden together with your spouse, while there are a lot of people in my country, like myself, whom believe that that is not a requierment, and thats why these questions were asked to the EU commision. I love to here your vieuw on that too?

I have done those things like sending a complaint to the EU commission and many others too. I think that that takes too long, and therefore I am planning, depending on the answer from the EU commission this week, to seek puplicity in the Media, becouse if I, we, are right, than we dont have to live together in a other member state to get the right to settle in our home country with our spouses? And that is the main question and that is also very important for you Danish people. I would think?

[skaanebo]

Denmark is actually a bad case to compare with in EU regulations since Denmark had a number of opt-outs after a national referendum that concluded with the Edinburgh treaty.

So at least in a Danish context the idea that you are born with the rights of a kind of union citizenship is unfounded. It might be so in other EU countries, though I doubt any country today would recognize such rights but it might happen some day in a not too distant future. In the meanwhile there is no doubt in my mind that you have to cross a border to exercise a right as an EU citizen and also that you actually have to set up a home in another country in order to be able to return and successfully claim those rights.

As for not crossing borders I know of only one situation where you are able to exercise rights given by EU legislation and that was a specific case where a person was selling services across EU borders but was based in his native country.

Back to your specific case: I don't understand why you couldnt obtain a new marriage certificate or have it legalized by the embassy of the country in question. It is obvious to me that you have to prove being married to each other or proof of having been an established couple having shared a previous residence in order to be able to exercise the right to bring your family with you.

In any case this is reality in a Danish context but as I told you with all these opt-outs it is difficult to compare Denmark and the Netherlands since we don't actually enjoy the same rights within the EU.

[fundiver199]

As for the questions asked by Sophia In t Veld, I think I have commented on some of them already. The application of Mrs. K.´s husband for a residence card was refused, becuase he did not live with Mrs. K. during her 4½ month in Belgium. This is also how the rules to "secundary free movement" i.e. moving back to your own country are entrepreted in Denmark. And in my opinion it is in accordance with existing rulings from the EU-court like Eind or Akrich.

The Metock ruling is not directly comparable, as it was about primary free movement i.e. using EU-rights in another EU-country than your own. What the Metock ruling say is that the derived rights of Mrs. K`s husband in Belgium can not be made dependent on the couple previously having lived together in another EU-country like e.g. Holland.

It dows not follow from the ruling in the Metock case however, that Mrs. K´s husband has a derived right of residence in her own country Holland after EU-law, because Mrks. K lived in Belgium for a periode before they met. Or after they married, but while he was living in the USA.

So my answers would be the following:

1) Of course the dutch court need to follow the runlings of the EU-court e.g. Metock, but that does not preclude the rejection of Mrs. K´s husbands applications under the given curcumstances.

2) No I do not agree. In the given situation i.e. secondary free movement a requirement of having lived together in another EU-country can be imposed, even it can not be imposed when utilizing the right to primary free movement (Metock).

3) Yes the burden of proff lies with the dutch count. Mrs. K and her husband do not need to prove their intention of staying in Belgium for more than the 4½ month, where Mrs. K stayed there (but without her husband).

4) This is a political question, and personally I agree that "reverse discrimation" is unlogical, unfair and in the long run unsustainable.

[fundiver199]

However. As others have already pointed out, the ruling in the Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano-case might give us new rights as EU-citizens, that we do not enjoy today, as this case revolves around the issues of reverse discrimination and the meaning of EU-citizenship. And if the opinion of ADVOCATE GENERAL Sharpston are followed by the court, this case will have pretty far reaching consequences.

As far as I can see, it would mean that all national rules for family reunification in cases, where one part is a union citizen, would need to be brought in line with the rules in directive 2004/38 EU. And by union citizen I mean all union citizens, weather or not they have utilized their right to free movement.

This is also the only logical and fair solution, but it will be very controversial in Denmark, Holland and probably also several other EU-countries.

[zandvoortzandvoort]

Hello, thank you for replaing. The latter of the marriage documents are long been solved. The Ambassy lost them and found them too! That was not the reason why we waited for the courd to dicide on our casus. I counted on the law, that we had been there together and that the courd in first instance regonized that. The last courd did too. But they denied him the right, as explained, becouse he had not registered. But the prove that he had been there was regonized! So we counted on a good outcome, but as i explained. They give that right to the woman whom had not registered, but had lived there for a longer time and not to my man, for unknown reasons, becouse they both had not regestered. We think that it was becouse he had been there only in and out for a short period, but that is not what they said. Their reason was the he had not shown a registration. The both conflicting verdicts are now being looked at by the proper channels.

I know the way to get that fixed, but that will take a while, in the meantime my husband became illigal becouse of that, and therefore we try to do the "route" over again. So dont worry about it, I am only persuing this to get my rights, wich they clearly did not give to us. And hopefully in the end a big compensation?

I now study EU law and so I know all the possibiliteis and rights. I am an adviser to many people from all over Europe and I have a lot of expieriance with the Brax Arrest and I bring people in to European borders, from their home land, those whom do not get their visa or have to waith for it for long! It is a long fight with the governememt but i will win it. I am sorry to here that you feel that your forum is not the right place to discuss, for the situation in your country is different with the Denish opt out, I knew about that, by the way. That dus not mean that they can deny your Union rights? So basically the same right are there for you people, just as they are there for us is it not?

The case discussed by you is Carpenter.

I just read your answer. You said the following:
It dows not follow from the ruling in the Metock case however, that Mrs. K´s husband has a derived right of residence in her own country Holland after EU-law, because Mrks. K lived in Belgium for a periode before they met. Or after they married, but while he was living in the USA.

I married my husband while being in his country and i was already living in Belgium by then. So we did have a mariage prior to my time in belgium. He was exaly living in Holland for he was too sick and never made it to Belgium, exept the time we went there to registre him and failed, he than returned to Holland becouse he was so ill that he had to go back in the Hospital. Had I known by then what I know, now I had ofcourse put him in a Belgium hospital, but that is past history and we have to do the route again! My people, what a life, with our immigration minded governements!

My thanks go to those, whom replied and toulk the time to give me a answer, we will talk more and I will let you konw the outcome on the questions asked to the EU commission. If I am right than that outcome of not having to live in a other member state also will count for you Danish and therefore it is important to you too.

With greetings, from Nic, that is my real name, greetings from Holland. Anybody want to come to Holland, we can exange houses. For 4 months or so? Than we can help each other that way? A new Denish, Dutch, "route"?

p.s. I will comment on the Eind becouse in all those cases, the fact that their family had been there with them, in Metock, Eind, Sing etc, was surcumstancial and not taken into account as relevent by the courd. Read them good, than you wil note that? Akrich was different on that issue.

[fundiver199]

Dear Nic

We should thank you for taking your time to write here and bring our attention to this very interesting case.

As for your own case it seems from your last description, that the problem is, that your husband did not actually move to Belgium but only visited you there shortly.

Given the total circumstances in the case a 1 day visit in Belgium is not enough to say, that the two of you had a family life in Belgium, which needed protection, when you returned to Holland.

So as you say, he should have been omitted in a Belgium hospital instead. I hope, that all will be well for you in the long run

[zandvoortzandvoort]

THank you, and believe me, if God is willing, it will all end well, and I for one see this as a good lesson and I got as far as this, so I got a good present by getting inflamed and so passionate with Union law. And i thank my governement for that, now I will be on every case they mess up and they already know my name and my reputation. Talk to you later.

Greetings from Nic

[zandvoortzandvoort]

Fundiver199, I see that you are still online, one more moment than?

Can you answer this question than? Becouse that you never answered to that earlier?
Were do you read that you have to do the time and rights to free movement and labor, together than?


question:
2. Does the Commission agree that Mrs K., by living in Belgium, qualified for the right to family reunification under Directive 2004/38/EC, and that the Dutch courts cannot, therefore, impose the additional requirement of having lived together in another EU Member State?

your answer:
2) No I do not agree. In the given situation i.e. secondary free movement a requirement of having lived together in another EU-country can be imposed, even it can not be imposed when utilizing the right to primary free movement (Metock)