I am a Canadian citizen married to a Norwegian citizen; my wife is exercising her freedom of movement treaty rights (Directive 2004/38/EC) by residing in Sweden, but working in Norway (self-sufficient) which forms the basis for our residency in Sweden. We moved in December 2012 and applied for a residence card in February for myself. My application for a residence card was rejected a few days ago by Swedish migration board on the basis that:
1. my partner does not make sufficient income/have sufficient means to provide for the household
2. my health insurance has a limit and it doesn't specify what type of coverage it is.
Now, to my understanding #1 should be irrelevant since the migration board's website says that:
However, because we like to be sure (and know the directive stipulates income requirements for self-sufficient), we double checked prior to applying and do meet the requirements for self-sufficient income (significantly over the "the level that would qualify your family for basic income support" in Sweden) and she is still within her rights to remain in Sweden as self-sufficient under the Directive's guidelines.The maintenance requirement does not apply to you if you:
are a citizen of Sweden, another EEA country or Switzerland
We had also offered my wife's new contract (hers ended in June but was renewed), but our caseworker said she didn't want additional information because what she had was enough for her to work with.
As for #2: Because we applied for the EEA route, not the Nordic citizen route, we found no information about health insurance (that is featured on the Nordic citizen page). We also initially assumed I was also covered under the Norwegian social services that my wife is covered by, but we received a letter some time in May asking for health care for me, so we called our case worker for more information. Her reply was that she didn't care what it was, just so long as it covered more than travel insurance. We purchased some (standard health insurance with a yearly maximum coverage, average limitations, recommended by others who had applied for residence card, valid until 2015 with possibility to renew after that, and indicates that it's both "travel" and "residence" health insurance) and sent it in. To make sure everything was okay, we called a few weeks later and she said she was checking it out, but would contact us if anything was wrong or incorrect -- but we never heard back so assumed all was okay.
The rejection letter cited a Swedish case (which we cannot find online it's from Göteborg courts and is case # 1285-13) saying that the health insurance should not have any restrictions or limits to cost -- however isn't it a little unreasonable to ask for unlimited health insurance? I know the ECJ hasn't ruled on a definition of comprehensive sickness insurance, but can there be this drastic an expectation from Sweden? Especially since any medical treatment my plan failed to cover would be my responsibility and not the Member States, thus I would pose no undue burden on the social services of the Member State. (side note: I've never heard of a health insurance plan that is unlimited in both cost and coverage). Does Baumbast (93) apply to this situation?
Additionally, the whole process took just over 10 months, which, if I recall correctly, the Directive says should be no more than 6 months. We were very clear that we were applying for a residence card (not residence permit) and that we were applying based on EEA residency (not Nordic residency).
The migration board says we have no right to appeal (bottom of page), however, I feel that there are strong grounds for appeal here. Has there been some violation of Directive/European law here? Are we within our rights to request an appeal/reconsideration?
We've tried contacting our case worker, but she only answers her phone an hour each day and has been away for the past few days.
Any help or advice you could provide would be very much appreciated.
