"EU Route" Could Be Further Extended
Duidelijk artikel door de advocaten van Everaert Advocaten waarvan ééntje zelf bij de zaak betrokken is.
There is a possibility that the “EU Route” could be further extended. On December 12, 2013, in a pending case before the European Court of Justice, Attorney General Sharpston came to this far-reaching conclusion. The Court must now make a ruling. If the Court follows this advice, this will significantly increase the possibilities for Dutch nationals to go up against the IND, on the European right to appeal.
Traditionally, European law does not apply as long as citizens do not go to another Member State. The idea was that the EU only aims to insure a person’s freedom of movement, so it was not necessary to also apply EU law to people (even though they’re EU citizens) who do not make use of the right to freedom of movement. The consequences can be felt in the area of family reunification: Dutch family members who, in the context of national law, do not make use of the right to freedom of movement must integrate abroad. They must apply for an MVV (Multiple Entry Clearance Visa). With continued residency comes further integration requirements and if income is not high enough or sufficiently sustainable at the time for renewal, there can be far-reaching consquences. Dutch nationals who move to Belgium are treated better on these points, not because of the Belgian policies but rather because of the European Citizens Directive, which becomes applicable in all Member States when EU citizens excercise their right to the freedom of movement. In the Netherlands, this Directive is applicable to family members of Belgians, Germans, Polish and Czechs; in short, all EU citizens, except the Dutch, who do not make use of the right to freedom of movement in the Netherlands.
But how difficult is it to make use of these rights? The case that is currently before the Court of Justice, defended by Mr. Eric Scheers of Everaert Advocaten, concerns Dutch (family members) who, although living in the Netherlands, have nevertheless still exercised their right to freedom of movement. The Court must decide how “serious” the use of these rights must be before the Netherlands can also be obliged to recognize the Europeans Citizens Directive for family reunification for its own nationals. Should a Dutch person and their family members, who have resided in the host country for at least three months and therefore "paid a price", be entitled to the European law? Can Dutch employees who are working for a Belgian employer, or who often have work appointments in Germany, already rely on EU law, without having to move their residence at all?
Attorney General Sharpston advises the Court of Justice to quickly decide on the application of the European conditions for family reunification. "I am not persuaded by the argument that an EU citizen (...) must have resided in another Member State for a continuous period of at least three months or some other 'substantial' period of time", said the Attorney General. Dutch employees who make use of the right of freedom of movement for their work and who depend upon family support to make this possible, should also be entitled to make a claim on EU law. This also applies when family members who, along with the EU citizen, are dependent upon cross-border activities, otherwise, the EU citizen and their families would be compelled to move to another Member State and it would therefore, no longer be considered freedom. That is a result that should be avoided, according to the A.G.
For further information about European law, please contact Erik Scheers and Arend van Rosmalen.
scheers@everaert.nl
vanrosmalen@everaert.nl
Hier gevonden: http://www.everaert.nl/en/news/13-bedrijven/258-europa-route-mogelijk-verder-uitgebreid
In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
There is a possibility that the “EU Route” could be further extended. On December 12, 2013, in a pending case before the European Court of Justice, Attorney General Sharpston came to this far-reaching conclusion. The Court must now make a ruling. If the Court follows this advice, this will significantly increase the possibilities for Dutch nationals to go up against the IND, on the European right to appeal.
Traditionally, European law does not apply as long as citizens do not go to another Member State. The idea was that the EU only aims to insure a person’s freedom of movement, so it was not necessary to also apply EU law to people (even though they’re EU citizens) who do not make use of the right to freedom of movement. The consequences can be felt in the area of family reunification: Dutch family members who, in the context of national law, do not make use of the right to freedom of movement must integrate abroad. They must apply for an MVV (Multiple Entry Clearance Visa). With continued residency comes further integration requirements and if income is not high enough or sufficiently sustainable at the time for renewal, there can be far-reaching consquences. Dutch nationals who move to Belgium are treated better on these points, not because of the Belgian policies but rather because of the European Citizens Directive, which becomes applicable in all Member States when EU citizens excercise their right to the freedom of movement. In the Netherlands, this Directive is applicable to family members of Belgians, Germans, Polish and Czechs; in short, all EU citizens, except the Dutch, who do not make use of the right to freedom of movement in the Netherlands.
But how difficult is it to make use of these rights? The case that is currently before the Court of Justice, defended by Mr. Eric Scheers of Everaert Advocaten, concerns Dutch (family members) who, although living in the Netherlands, have nevertheless still exercised their right to freedom of movement. The Court must decide how “serious” the use of these rights must be before the Netherlands can also be obliged to recognize the Europeans Citizens Directive for family reunification for its own nationals. Should a Dutch person and their family members, who have resided in the host country for at least three months and therefore "paid a price", be entitled to the European law? Can Dutch employees who are working for a Belgian employer, or who often have work appointments in Germany, already rely on EU law, without having to move their residence at all?
Attorney General Sharpston advises the Court of Justice to quickly decide on the application of the European conditions for family reunification. "I am not persuaded by the argument that an EU citizen (...) must have resided in another Member State for a continuous period of at least three months or some other 'substantial' period of time", said the Attorney General. Dutch employees who make use of the right of freedom of movement for their work and who depend upon family support to make this possible, should also be entitled to make a claim on EU law. This also applies when family members who, along with the EU citizen, are dependent upon cross-border activities, otherwise, the EU citizen and their families would be compelled to move to another Member State and it would therefore, no longer be considered freedom. That is a result that should be avoided, according to the A.G.
For further information about European law, please contact Erik Scheers and Arend van Rosmalen.
scheers@everaert.nl
vanrosmalen@everaert.nl
Hier gevonden: http://www.everaert.nl/en/news/13-bedrijven/258-europa-route-mogelijk-verder-uitgebreid
In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
Reacties
Should Sharpstons conclusion about the habitual residence (centre of ones interest) be accepted in the upcoming court decision.
Gart Adang (as lawyer involved in one of the four cases).