to whom it concern

This is why we have suggested she move to the eu with him and then come back - I have not once disputed that she can't live with him in the eu and then return with him -
I'm just saying Malta require 2 years proof of relationship  as party a lives in Malta and party be lived in Pakistan they would need to live together in another eu country to prove the relationship .. This means party a would have to be resident in the other country and would need to either work there or be ecomomically self sufficient  for a period of time . The ec document does not detail time scale ? The ec directive does not detail time scale ... Malta do  .

The surinder Singh case gives a minimum time scale providing that requirements are met .  However it's only binding on the UK so can only be used as a guide.

I have given her options , get married outside the eu - live together for two years move to Malta
- move to another eu country to form a tangible relationship such as living together and the eu citizen would have to live and work in that country during that undetermined period of time that could be from 3- 24 months depending on if Malta follow the principle in the case you mention -( based on official documentation it doesn't look like it does )

- or she convinces the director of the relationship and he grants a short term residency

I havent changed my argument

robpw2 wrote:

This is why we have suggested she move to the eu with him and then come back - I have not once disputed that she can't live with him in the eu and then return with him -
I'm just saying Malta require 2 years proof of relationship  as party a lives in Malta and party be lived in Pakistan they would need to live together in another eu country to prove the relationship .. This means party a would have to be resident in the other country and would need to either work there or be ecomomically self sufficient  for a period of time . The ec document does not detail time scale ? The ec directive does not detail time scale ... Malta do  .

The surinder Singh case gives a minimum time scale providing that requirements are met .  However it's only binding on the UK so can only be used as a guide.

I have given her options , get married outside the eu - live together for two years move to Malta
- move to another eu country to form a tangible relationship such as living together and the eu citizen would have to live and work in that country during that undetermined period of time that could be from 3- 24 months depending on if Malta follow the principle in the case you mention -( based on official documentation it doesn't look like it does )

- or she convinces the director of the relationship and he grants a short term residency

I havent changed my argument

you said //your options are as far as i can see marry him in pakistan and live there for two years cementing a tangible  relationship live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship
apply anyway and try to convince them//  ........ but then.............// move to another eu country to form a tangible relationship such as living together and the eu citizen would have to live and work in that country during that undetermined period of time that could be from 3- 24 months depending //   That looks like a change there.

you said//ALSO IT IS NOT BINDING ON MALTA AND CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO THE UK //  ....but then......I showed you a pdf that says otherwise and now you say that there is no detail of time-scale, but it looks you were originally referring to two years as proof of a valid relationship, and now it seems you are shifting it towards how long they must stay in the other member-state, in which case I doubt a two-year requirement by Malta would stand in the EC court.

Keep in mind, if they are exercising EU Freedom of Movement rights, they need not prove the tangibility of their marriage.

The court case is not binding on Malta now or ever - this is correct  - I did not once say that she couldn't move to another eu country and live with him.
What I have continuously said is they would have to prove a relationship of at least two years as they are not married !!!   This hasn't changed
They may be able to live In another eu country and then move back but they will have to prove a tangible relationship - if they marry they still have to provide a marriage certificate
Proving a tangible relationship could be living together for a number of years , having a joint bank account etc  as they aren't married they will need to proves relationship

Also op it may be worth noting the following information applies to partners (unmarried ) when living in the eu

Workers

The authorities in the EU country where you are working will assess whether your non-EU relatives/partner should be authorised to stay there as your family members (because you are an EU national employed, posted or self-employed there for longer than 3 months). The assessment will be done on the basis of the national conditions and on a case-by-case basis.


They aren't married rmn345

rmny345 wrote:

F0xgl0ve wrote:

I think, by now, if he was still here, 'Redmik' would be jumping up and down shouting 'TROLL', 'TROLL'

It might be a good time for Admin. to get involved with 'rmny345'

Ray

Why, because he is giving false information and I am calling him out on it?  I simply made a suggestion to the OP and his ego lead him to challenge me and he is asserting false facts such as how the Surinder Singh clause doesn't apply to anyone but the UK.  Why should anyone accept that?

Because that's how eu case law works - perhaps your law degree taught you differently ??


As your fond of using Europa
http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making … dex_en.htm


A "decision" is binding on those to whom it is addressed (e.g. an EU country or an individual company) and is directly applicable. For example, when the Commission issued a decision fining software giant Microsoft for abusing its dominant market position , the decision applied to Microsoft only.

It is interesting to note that the actual EU legislation quotes a ' stable relationship '  to accept a partnership between an EU citizen and a non-EU  citizen as requirement for the granting of residency. A marriage itself is a completely different matter and could only be jeopardized on suspicion of marriage of convienience.

Malta defines a stable relationship as one that has subsisted for more than 2 years but leaves the door open for discretion by the Director of the department. I myself was actually able to use this door and it worked but it was not easy. An accepted proof is living together in Malta for more than two years.

Other countries have their own definitions of stable relationship. So that would need to be checked if the couple is not married and wants to go this path.

But in the case being discussed here the couple are not married and the EU citizen being Maltese and living in Malta would have Maltese regulations applied if moving to Malta first.

If they are married before they arrive in the EU they might still actually have a problem. They would have to show that their marriage is not one of convienience if the authorities in the country they move to were to question it. Not all is as it appears to be in the EU -))) And the UK is a completely different matter.

Cheers
Ricky

You are correct about the partnership part, except that in most cases, if they had a child together, the time requirement would be deemed unjustified in front of an EC court.

However when it comes to EU Directive rights--whether going from country A to B to live or coming back from B to A, it doesn't seem they need to prove anything:

"...Member States may define a set of indicative criteria suggesting the possible intention to
abuse the rights conferred by the Directive for the sole purpose of contravening national
immigration laws. National authorities may in particular take into account the following
factors:
• the couple have never met before their marriage;
• the couple are inconsistent about their respective personal details, about the circumstances
of their first meeting, or about other important personal information concerning them;
• the couple do not speak a language understood by both;
• evidence of a sum of money or gifts handed over in order for the marriage to be contracted
(with the exception of money or gifts given in the form of a dowry in cultures where this is
common practice);
• the past history of one or both of the spouses contains evidence of previous marriages of
convenience or other forms of abuse and fraud to acquire a right of residence;
• development of family life only after the expulsion order was adopted;

62 The prohibition includes not only checks on all migrants, but also checks on whole classes of migrants
(e.g. those from a given ethnic origin). 63 Community law does not require third country family spouses to live with the EU citizen to qualify for
a right of residence – case 267/83 Diatta (para 15 et seq.).
EN 17 EN
• the couple divorces shortly after the third country national in question has acquired a right
of residence.
The above criteria should be considered possible triggers for investigation, without any
automatic inferences from results or subsequent investigations. Member States may not rely
on one sole attribute; due attention has to be given to all the circumstances of the individual
case. The investigation may involve a separate interview with each of the two spouses.
S., a third country national, was ordered to leave in one month as she had overstayed her
tourist visa. After two weeks, she married O., an EU national who had just arrived to the host
Member State. The authorities suspect that the marriage might have been concluded only to
avoid expulsion. They contact the authorities in O.’s Member State and find out that after the
wedding his family shop was finally able to pay a debt of 5000 EUR, which it had been unable
to repay for two years.
They invite the newly-weds for an interview, during which they find out that O. has meanwhile
already left the host Member State to return home to his job, that the couple is not able to
communicate in a common language and that they met for the first time one week before the
marriage. There are strong indications that the couple may have married with the sole
purpose of contravening national immigration laws.
The burden of proof lies on the authorities of the Member States seeking to restrict rights
under the Directive. The authorities must be able to build a convincing case while respecting
all the material safeguards described in the previous section. On appeal, it is for the national
courts to verify the existence of abuse in individual cases, evidence of which must be adduced
in accordance with the rules of national law, provided that the effectiveness of Community
law is not thereby undermined64.
Investigations must be carried out in accordance with fundamental rights, in particular with
Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 12 (right to marry) of the ECHR
(Articles 7 and 9 of the EU Charter).
On going investigation of suspected cases of marriages of convenience cannot justify
derogation from the rights of third country family members under the Directive, such as the
prohibition of the right to work, seizure of passport or dely of the issue of a residence card
within six months from the date of application. These rights can be withdrawn at any time as a
result of subsequent investigations...." 
(   COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 2.7.2009
COM(2009) 313 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the
right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within
the territory of the Member States    )

A lot of legal bla-bla to say exactly what ? I don't think they have gotten that far in their relationship as there was mention of children.

Who or what are you rmny345 ? A lawyer at the European Court ? You  know all these laws and regulations by very well.

Cheers
Ricky

ricky wrote:

A lot of legal bla-bla to say exactly what ? I don't think they have gotten that far in their relationship as there was mention of children.

Who or what are you rmny345 ? A lawyer at the European Court ? You  know all these laws and regulations by very well.

Cheers
Ricky

lol ,,, (he doesnt or he wouldn't have used Wikipedia to back up his incorrect argument yesterday )

ricky wrote:

A lot of legal bla-bla to say exactly what ? I don't think they have gotten that far in their relationship as there was mention of children.

Who or what are you rmny345 ? A lawyer at the European Court ? You  know all these laws and regulations by very well.

Cheers
Ricky

If you read properly, I said the two-year requirement can be forgone IF they have children together.  However, your statement "..f they are married before they arrive in the EU they might still actually have a problem. They would have to show that their marriage is not one of convienience if the authorities in the country they move to were to question it. Not all is as it appears to be in the EU -))) And the UK is a completely different matter..." looks pretty wrong based on the information I cited for you.  Let that get under your skin if you want, fine by me.

robpw2 wrote:

ricky wrote:

A lot of legal bla-bla to say exactly what ? I don't think they have gotten that far in their relationship as there was mention of children.

Who or what are you rmny345 ? A lawyer at the European Court ? You  know all these laws and regulations by very well.

Cheers
Ricky

lol ,,, (he doesnt or he wouldn't have used Wikipedia to back up his incorrect argument yesterday )

The last source I gave you was not even wikipedia, but it still showed you that you are wrong, so, either learn from it or be bitter; it won't change any facts about the law.

Just in case your memory is a little foggy, you said:
"...What is guaranteed about the surinder Singh case is it only applies to those trying to enter the UK as that is the party that was directed in the court case ,  what is also gautenteed is when Netherlands bought a case - the surinder Singh case was not used In order to determine a decision these can both be found from legal sources . .."

But then I listed a source (other than Wiki--http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/ci … nt_low.pdf) that said:
"...You are also entitled to benefit from the rights granted under the Directive if you return
home after having resided in another EU country....."
If you can't see how it contradicts what you are asserting, then I think you have no room to talk about who knows what.

rmny345 wrote:

Just in case your memory is a little foggy, you said:
"...What is guaranteed about the surinder Singh case is it only applies to those trying to enter the UK as that is the party that was directed in the court case ,  what is also gautenteed is when Netherlands bought a case - the surinder Singh case was not used In order to determine a decision these can both be found from legal sources . .."

But then I listed a source (other than Wiki--http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/ci … nt_low.pdf) that said:
"...You are also entitled to benefit from the rights granted under the Directive if you return
home after having resided in another EU country....."
If you can't see how it contradicts what you are asserting, then I think you have no room to talk about who knows what.

the surinder singh case is not mentioned on that second document anywhere
no one is disputing that you cannot enter another eu country and return having lived there - you would argue with a paper bag !! In my original post i gave this as an option
the surinder singh case ONLY  applies to the UK this is the only case in which time scale is mentioned

as yet there has been no case against Malta to argue that asking for 2 years of relationship proof is against the directive when there is then of course the court will be free to make its own mind up

robpw2 wrote:

rmny345 wrote:

Just in case your memory is a little foggy, you said:
"...What is guaranteed about the surinder Singh case is it only applies to those trying to enter the UK as that is the party that was directed in the court case ,  what is also gautenteed is when Netherlands bought a case - the surinder Singh case was not used In order to determine a decision these can both be found from legal sources . .."

But then I listed a source (other than Wiki--http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/ci … nt_low.pdf) that said:
"...You are also entitled to benefit from the rights granted under the Directive if you return
home after having resided in another EU country....."
If you can't see how it contradicts what you are asserting, then I think you have no room to talk about who knows what.

the surinder singh case is not mentioned on that second document anywhere
no one is disputing that you cannot enter another eu country and return having lived there - you would argue with a paper bag !! In my original post i gave this as an option
the surinder singh case ONLY  applies to the UK this is the only case in which time scale is mentioned

as yet there has been no case against Malta to argue that asking for 2 years of relationship proof is against the directive when there is then of course the court will be free to make its own mind up

The Surinder Singh case is the precedent for it.  You can easily look that up online and find "... the ECJ ruled that when EEA nationals work or are self-employed in another Member State, that on return to their own country they will be entitled to the same community rights, without discrimination, as any other EEA national. In particular, reference was made to the entitlement of ‘family members’ to join the EEA national on their return to their own country...." on places like  eumovement.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/choosing-to-use-eu-law-instead-of-national-law/

And in the beginning you were asserting that they had to live there for two years and still confront the authorities suspicion of their marriage not being tangible, when EU law states otherwise.  And if this does come up in court, the legal representatives for the couple will be able to avail of this case.  But if you want to keep on with your cheap insults and projection, keep on arguing and trying to move the goal posts and change your argument.  You will still be wrong.

//your options are as far as i can see
marry him in pakistan and live there for two years cementing a tangible  relationship
live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship//

This is what you said, and I am saying no, EU law states that in Freedom of Movement cases that the burden of proof is on the authorities regarding the validity of marriage and the Surinder Singh route would apply if they moved from another EU country to the home country, which would render it a move under EU rights, not national rights.

Hi rmny345,

all this legal crap does not help our original Maltese poster.

Once again , who are you and what is your interest in this case? You want to move to Germany according to your profile.

She wants to marry a Pakistan citizen who is still in Pakistan and they don't have children and the durability of their relationship is unclear.

He has little chance of getting a visa for any European country unless he is quite rich !

So she will have to move to Pakistan and marry him according to the legal requirements in Pakistan and make sure that these are such that they will be accepted in Europe and Malta.

I would recommend that she contacts DCEA in Malta and discusses her situation. The Director of the department is strict but fair ! And  the Director is a woman and would be able to give advice on how to proceed. No European regulations or laws are going to help our original Maltese poster here in Malta.

Cheers
Ricky

They may be able to use the case to argue a point like you are but its not binding on anywhere but the UK so you cannot use it to get entry to Malta currently - you have to meet Maltese requirements which ask for two years proof or the descision of the director and until such a case is bought against Malta the facts don't change
If they want to live together in another's u  country They will still need to prove a relationship exists ... Even in the UK you have to prove a relationship - Ie marriage  certificate etc

Eu law is the directive 
Eu case law is the descision  by the court -this is only binding on the country or individual it addresses

Thefore Malta do not have to  currently follow the descision of the surinder Singh case ... If someone takes Malta to court and the court decides that asking for proof that you have been in a relationship for two years is within the directives ... It would not suddenly mean this applies to all eu countries it would only apply to Malta .

Now you can insult me all you like it doesn't make you right , it doesn't make you a lawyer ,

//all this legal crap does not help our original Maltese poster.//  sure it does--if she is willing to marry him first and go to a different EU state, either entirely or long enough to show a shift of her 'center of interest' before migrating back to Malta.

//Once again , who are you and what is your interest in this case? You want to move to Germany according to your profile.//  I keep my options open, who knows!  Gotta say the weather in Malta looks nicer than that of Germany.

//She wants to marry a Pakistan citizen who is still in Pakistan and they don't have children and the durability of their relationship is unclear.//  Yes, and 1) they can do the Surinder Singh route if they really want to live in Malta and 2) with that, or any other form of exercising of EU Directive rights, they need not prove the validity of their marriage other than a valid marriage document.

//He has little chance of getting a visa for any European country unless he is quite rich !//  if he is married to an EU citizen, he has as much chance as anyone.

//So she will have to move to Pakistan and marry him according to the legal requirements in Pakistan and make sure that these are such that they will be accepted in Europe and Malta.//  yes, I never suggested they not marry in Pakistan, and you are right that if their marriage is not within the law, such as a bigamous marriage that may be legal in certain countries, Malta does not have to accept, but otherwise, they cannot tell an EU migrant or someone migrating back to their home country via the Surinder Singh route that they have to prove the validity or duration of their marriage.

//I would recommend that she contacts DCEA in Malta and discusses her situation. The Director of the department is strict but fair ! And  the Director is a woman and would be able to give advice on how to proceed. No European regulations or laws are going to help our original Maltese poster here in Malta.// if she tries to bring him from Pakistan directly to Malta, yes, you are correct, but if she decides to move to another EU country first, she may use EU rights and would no longer be subject to Maltese national law and could avail the help of SOLVIT if they tried to stop her.

Keep in mind that I am not trying to push her to go live in another EU country first--especially if she does not have the means--but I do feel it's the right thing to do to at least let her know she does have this option--which I have given beyond sufficient evidence to indicate.

//She wants to marry a Pakistan citizen who is still in Pakistan and they don't have children and the durability of their relationship is unclear.//  Yes, and 1) they can do the Surinder Singh route if they really want to live in Malta and 2) with that, or any other form of exercising of EU Directive rights, they need not prove the validity of their marriage other than a valid marriage document.

Please stop saying they can use the surinder Singh route they cannot and you have been told this repeatedly , I have also explained why ... They are not married and the surinder Singh route  only applies to those married couples moving from the eu to the UK !

robpw2 wrote:

//She wants to marry a Pakistan citizen who is still in Pakistan and they don't have children and the durability of their relationship is unclear.//  Yes, and 1) they can do the Surinder Singh route if they really want to live in Malta and 2) with that, or any other form of exercising of EU Directive rights, they need not prove the validity of their marriage other than a valid marriage document.

Please stop saying they can use the surinder Singh route they cannot and you have been told this repeatedly , I have also explained why ... They are not married and the surinder Singh route  only applies to those married couples moving from the eu to the UK !

1) I am saying IF they get married first; what part of that do you continue to miss?  2) If they move to say, Italy, or Greece, or Sweden, THEN to Malta, they can use the Surinder SIngh route; I have given you enough proof from valid sources and you either don't understand it or just refuse to believe it.

Hi everybody,

After analysing this topic, it seems that this will leads to nowhere.

Therefore, we are closing it permanently.

Thanks for your understanding,

Priscilla

[ Topic closed ]