This is the result of a cooperation of an Iranian woman who wanted a Schengenvisa and me a Dutch lawyer. Pick and choose what you can use. I would appreciate being named as the author.ANOTHER STATE OBJECTING
No legal remedies? - preliminary questions
Visa
aside, given my spotless personal history as described above, I am sure you can
understand that I cannot accept the accusations levelled against me, implied by
the reasons given for your refusal. I intend to get legal advice and if
necessary take legal action in order to clear my name, which from my point of
view your office has unjustifiably besmirched although I understand it is not
so much country X (not Holland) what sees a problem in giving me a visa but some unnamed other
EU country.
As I have
no idea what country that might be I am unable to defend myself. That means I
have no sufficient legal remedy as is an obligation under the ECHR.
I would
like to put before you two cases in which Dutch courts asked for prejudicial
questions of the European Court of Justice.
Translated
from Dutch (using Google Translate) I quote the ruling of the District court of
Amsterdam (The Netherlands) of the 4th of March 2020:
8. The
court finds with the parties that two comparable cases are pending before the
Court, namely C-225/19 and C-226/19. In short - this concerns the answer to the
same question that is at issue here, namely whether the appeal procedure from
the Visa Code does provide sufficient legal protection and good administration,
if the objecting Member State does not provide any explanation regarding the
alleged threat and nor does it explain whether, and in what way, the foreign
national can use a legal remedy against this. The court further establishes
with the parties that in those cases it was known which Member State had
objected to the visa being issued.
9. In
this case, unlike in cases C-225/19 and C-226/19, the Minister has not
disclosed which Member State or Member States have or have objections to the
issue of a visa to the claimant.
10. Prior
to the hearing, the court asked, among other things, the Minister whether he is
prepared to notify the court of the name of the member state or member states
that object, using article 8:29 of the Administrative Law Code. Although the
claimant agreed to this procedure of limited access by letter of 17 February
2020, the Minister stated in his response of 19 February 2020 that he will not
do this without an opinion from that Member State or States. The Minister also
stated that he is aware of which Member State or Member States have or have
objected. He has registered this in the NVIS. However, he is not aware of why
that Member State or States objects or has objected.
11. At
the meeting, the lawyer of the Minister explained that he does not want to
provide the name of the Member State concerned because, in his opinion, that
information is confidential. Although the court is of the opinion that the name
of the objecting Member State is part of the documents to be submitted by the
Minister pursuant to Section 8:28 in conjunction with Section 8:42 of the Awb,
the Court finds that no longer has any procedural possibilities to obtain this
information on the attitude of the Minister.
12. In
addition to the questions posed by this court, (Administrative Court in
Haarlem), the court will therefore refer a further question to the Court for a
preliminary ruling. This question reads as follows:
Is
the answer to preliminary questions in cases before the Court registered under
numbers C ‑ 225/19 and C-226/19, different, if the country referred to in
the preliminary consultation referred to is not disclosed or has not been
revealed that has objected to the issue of a visa to the applicant in Article
22 of the Visa Code?
13.
Finally, the court notes that it is the first and only body in these visa
cases. Finally, it is also important that the agent of the Minister explained
at the hearing that he had several similar appeals at different hearing places
of this court, where he also did not disclose the name of the objecting Member
State.
14. In
view of the above, the hearing of the appeal will be adjourned until the Court
has given its decision
12. In
addition to the questions posed by this court, the seat in Haarlem, the court
will therefore refer a further question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
This question reads as follows:
Is the
answer to preliminary questions in cases before the Court registered under
numbers C ‑
225/19 and C-226/19, different, if the country referred to in the preliminary
consultation referred to is not disclosed or has not been revealed that has
objected to the issue of a visa to the applicant in Article 22 of the Visa
Code?
This is the link to C -225/19
mentioned in that ruling: https://op.europa.eu/nl/publication-detail/-/publication/60d134e6-8611-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1
2004/38 and BREXIT?
I also was wondering if a third
state is allowed to object because I am married to a British national and have
a residence permit for the UK (see enclosed copy). Under Directive 2004/38/EU
an EU national would be allowed to bring a third country national who he is in
a relationship with to another EU country for a holiday. I believe Country X
opted out of that Directive but as the third country probably has not done so
can they object? And with my UK residence permit can I not travel freely into
another EU country now we are still in that special year after BREXIT?
NATIONAL VISA
I was also wondering if you are
not willing to give me a national (LTV) visa for Country X only as that option is
also available under the Visa Code. According to the Schengen Visa Code, member
states may issue LTV visas when a consulate deems it justifiable to overcome
the three-month limitation in six months, when a member state considers it
necessary due to pressing circumstances to derogate from entry conditions as
set by Schengen Borders Code, to overcome objections of other member states, or
in cases of urgency. My sister and my only sibling lives in country X and I would
very much like to see her. Article 8 of the ECHR grants people a right to
family life. I have developed sufficient economical and social ties to the
United Kingdom. My husband works as a,,,,,,, and I work as a ....while
looking for a job in linguistics. (See work contracts). I am a trustworthy
traveler who never overstayed a visa.
Iranians?
I am sincerely asking for a reconsideration of the decision with
regards to my Schengen visa application, particularly in respect of the reasons
given for refusal. I’m not sure how this
decision was reached, but I assure you in respect of the reasons advanced
(unless the policy of country X or that other EU country is now to refuse entry
to all Iranian nationals, following the example of the United States of
America), a mistake has been made, a mistake that has far reaching consequences
regarding my rights to a normal family life by maintaining contact with my relatives
(in this case my sister who has been studying and working in country X for 5
years). I have heard rumors that Hungary
objects to visa applications by Muslims randomly. If that is also the case here
please do not let yourself be ruled by a xenophobic influence from the other
side of the continent,
I
would like to submit my previous passport, tickets, my marriage certificate and
a brief travel history with my appeal as well.
COVID
Corona /Covid is a real burden to the world at the moment and although I
have a British residence permit you might not be able to give me a visa right
now due to national health concerns. In that case please shelve my appeal and
wait with taking a decision but take a decision when the borders are open again
Interessant artikel? Deel het eens met uw netwerk en help mee met het verspreiden van de bekendheid van dit blog. Er staan wellicht nog meer artikelen op dit weblog die u zullen boeien. Kijk gerust eens rond. Zelf graag wat willen plaatsen? Mail dan webmaster@vreemdelingenrecht.com 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. Subscribe to Vreemdelingenrecht.com blog by Email
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten