Danish immigration law under fire after EU court ruling

[flyboy]

http://euobserver.com/9/26557

[flyboy]

In regard to this ruling, can anyone tell me whether those family members of EU citizens applying for EEA family permits from outside of the EU/EEA , still have to satisfy the requirement according to UK immigration rules , as stated on the following link in section 1.2.1 and section 2.3 ?

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco ... iew=Binary

[flyboy]

Any other countries in the EU that will have to adjust their immigration laws for EU family members, which have 2 seperate set of rules for non EU family members of EU citizens that are resident in the EU/EEA and those resident outside the EU, as in the case of Ireland, Denmark, Finland and the UK ?

[86ti]

Any other countries in the EU that will have to adjust their immigration laws for EU family members, which have 2 seperate set of rules for non EU family members of EU citizens that are resident in the EU/EEA and those resident outside the EU, as in the case of Ireland, Denmark, Finland and the UK ?

Not sure, but as far as I understand Austria requires a married couple to either cross the boarder together or the EEA spouse must be present in country before the non-EEA spouse enters. Treaty rights would not be in effect if the marriage took place inside the country. As far as I understand the ruling against Ireland, Austrians view of things would be now wrong too.

[porkpie]

hi chaps,

Yes this confuses me profusely. According to the news article posted above, EU law superceeds local laws for EU citizens using their rights. The example given in the Home Office documentation suggests that the Nigerian wife would have to meet the entry clearence rules; so this suggests two things (both confusing):

a) that you'd need to meet an entry clearence rule, i.e you're not attempting to enter in a category that isn't available and;

b) you are entering under the guise of UK immigration law (good luck with that), but it clearly states in the UK Visas refusal rules (chapter 26) that the relevant paragraphs that relate to bans, bad behaviour etc don't apply to EEA permits etc.

So if you are using your EU rights in another country, can/is your significant other apply(ing) under EU rules?

I'm not sure i've read any of that right, so forgive me if it's a case of ulnar-posterior confusion.

[archigabe]

Denmark Pledges to Defend National Immigration Laws Against EU

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe

Danish law forbids citizens under 24 from bringing non-EU spouses into the country in a bid to prevent Danish Muslims from bringing in young brides through arranged marriages. Until now, the government hasn't even allowed those couples into the country after they have lived in other EU states - something that conflicts with EU law.

Twenty-two year-old Per Christensen has been trapped by the new regulations. He was told two years ago that he couldn't reside in Denmark with his American wife, even though he was working in London at the time.

When Per asked if European law on freedom of movement applied in his case, Danish officials told him it didn't.

``I feel cheated, misguided and I feel that we have been dealing with some shady people,'' he said. ``It makes me feel like I wasted two years of my life playing this immigration game.''

Denmark has misinformed thousands of applicants like Christensen, Copenhagen-based Marriage Without Borders chairman Bolette Kornum said.

The organization will start proceedings in local courts after parliament's ombudsman has finished investigating whether officials deliberately misled applicants, she said. The ombudsman hasn't set a deadline for his report.

[joesoap101]

Who wouldve thought Denmark was as corrupt as Ireland.

[JAJ]

We may be coming closer to the point where member states are willing to openly defy the EU in defence of their national interests.

[Christophe]

We may be coming closer to the point where member states are willing to openly defy the EU in defence of their national interests.

I think perhaps we are, though we may not be there yet. But as I have opined elsewhere, if the EU pushes member states too far in this sort of regard, it is at risk of "scoring an own goal".

[ca.funke]

We may be coming closer to the point where member states are willing to openly defy the EU in defence of their national interests.

The one thing I do not understand is, why do member-states first sign up to directives and subsequently go against them?

If they were smart they can FIRST read the proposals, then REFLECT on the consequences, and then REFUSE SIGNING them in the first place...

...what is happening right now reminds me of someone who bought a vacuum cleaner on the doorstep, and then complains about the fine-print.

[ciaramc]

It's no just Irelandand Denmark, Italy is also denyin g EU nationals exercising their treaty rights!!! ie....me!

It is just disgraceful!!!! If you don't wanna follow the rules don't join the club!

[sakura]

Who wouldve thought Denmark was as corrupt as Ireland.

Why are they corrupt? Where is the political corruption??

[JAJ]

The one thing I do not understand is, why do member-states first sign up to directives and subsequently go against them?

If they were smart they can FIRST read the proposals, then REFLECT on the consequences, and then REFUSE SIGNING them in the first place...

First, governments, like individuals, are capable of making mistakes. The EU makes it impossible for mistakes ever to be resolved. It is near impossible to change a directive once it is agreed.

Second, there is often a lot of "political pressure" on governments to agree to directives.

Third, it is possible for a government to change. However, being part of the EU means that it is impossible for a government to change policies agreed to by its predecessor.

This is why democracy is effectively dying in most EU states.

[Christophe]

First, governments, like individuals, are capable of making mistakes. The EU makes it impossible for mistakes ever to be resolved. It is near impossible to change a directive once it is agreed.

Second, there is often a lot of "political pressure" on governments to agree to directives.

Third, it is possible for a government to change. However, being part of the EU means that it is impossible for a government to change policies agreed to by its predecessor.

This is why democracy is effectively dying in most EU states.

Also, I'd add to that list that sometimes circumstances change. The mere fact that something might have been a genuinely good idea at some time in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it will continue to be so in perpetuity. In the normal run of events, governments can make changes to policies as the need arises: this doesn't have to imply weakness or indecision on the part of a government (it might do so, of course, but not necessarily), since the situation might have altered. (This is true in private life as well: beyond a few moral absolutes, most people are happy to adapt as their circumstances change. Few people, for instance, would consider that the decisions that they made about, say, where they should live when they were 25 are binding on them when they're 75.)

Of course, such governmental policy changes are easier with a change of government, as noted above in JAJ's third point, but that too is denied in cases such as this.

I am not saying that such a change of circumstances is the case here, but sometimes there are unintended consequences of a decision that was taken in good faith. Governments need to be able to deal with those unintended consequences if good governance is not to become a thing of the past.