makfai

I agree that the matters we are discussing all involve 'interpretation' and that really answers the question of 'what do we do?'  The practical answer is 'nothing' because the only way to get a ruling would be through the judicial system...time and money consuming! However if anyone is interested in the broader subject there are some discussions here and here relevant to disability. As I said earlier, however, it is not only those wishing to take up residence who face problems the same applies to those who are already resident (under 5 years) and who develop a health problem which then makes them unable to find commercial insurance.  Failure of commercial insurers to take you on places your 'right of continued residence' in jeopardy...this is clearly no more correct than was the original plan to extend the law retrospectively.  I don't think anyone believes that this issue is black and white  and I am not sure that I follow Ron's comments on setting up 'token employment' . You pay contributions whether your business is performing well or not and who could identify in the current world financial situation that your business as a 'website designer' or 'pool cleaner' etc was a spurious one or not.   By the way...I am no "lawyer". Health provision is a tricky subject and especially so across national boundaries.  The EU identifies free movement as a primary right but it somehow has to square the circle of economic impact versus ideals it espouses.  Unfortunately for us we are at the historical beginning of this journey and some of us are going to lose out.

  I would warn Ron this may be MUCH too long for him to read J.   Let me say at the start that I am not challenging Ron’s and other’s views that economics has its place in this argument.  I would also say that I am not sure I can offer viable alternatives. The problem is that the EU has got itself in a mess over its principles particularly that of movement. Franco Frattini, Vice President of the European Commission, in his written guide (entitled ‘Civis europaeus sum’) to EU Directive 2004/38/EC, described the EU as a ‘special area of human hope’   ‘Community law, in the form of Directive 2004/38/EC, fulfils one of humanity’s most long-standing aspirations: the possibility of moving without restrictions or hindrances and settling down in the country of one’s choice together with one’s family.’   However, this legislation effectively discriminates against certain people by setting a benchmark which is unattainable.  This is wrong in principle and is a hindrance to, and flies in the face of, the EU’s statement that: [my highlights]   ‘Citizenship of the Union confers on every citizen of the Union a primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and to the measures adopted to give it effect.’   It would appear that both the EU Directive and the French legislation are requiring a category of people – i.e. those with certain pre-existing conditions – to achieve the impossible.  Legislation which does that is clearly wrong.   The Directive states that  [my highlights]   ‘This Directive respects the fundamental rights and freedoms and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In accordance with the prohibition of discrimination contained in the Charter, Member States should implement this Directive without discrimination between the beneficiaries of this Directive on grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinion, membership of an ethnic minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation,’   Those people who are ‘disabled’ through pre-existing conditions will not be able to meet the criterion of ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ contained in both Article 7 and the French legislation (unless it is through an approved ‘E’ Form [e.g. E106]) as they would have to seek such insurance from a commercial source.  In some cases no commercial source exists.   The effect of this is to discriminate against these people as a direct result of their disability.  Those persons suffering from a disability and not already resident in France will be prohibited from obtaining residence in France beyond three months directly as a result of their illness.   This discriminatory act contravenes the Directive’s own guidelines and the ‘Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ and is, therefore, not only discriminatory but unreasonable and unlawful.   It is fully appreciated that there is a balance to be struck between free movement and the burden new residents may place on Member States.  However, the way in which the Directive is being applied in France does not allow for the case of each EU Citizen who wishes to be considered a potential resident to be judged on its merits in regard to the ‘burden on the state’ issue.    The approach to application of the Directive in France creates a blanket affect based on a financial criterion which the commercial insurance industry and not the state will set. This financial criterion will have an in built profit margin for the commercial provider.   For an EU Citizen’s right of residence to be subjected to a criterion which contains an element of profit for a private commercial enterprise, rather than being an assessment of whether the potential resident would be a burden on the state, is fundamentally flawed.    Such a policy also conflicts with the Article 31 of the Directive which prohibits discrimination on the basis of ‘property’ (in this case money and the ability to pay).   The introduction of this legislation by the French Government means that ongoing residence in France for an existing resident from another EU Member State is also balanced on the knife edge of that resident being able to contribute, on an ongoing basis, to the profits of a commercial insurance company - a company whose primary responsibility is to its shareholders NOT its customers.   The risk to existing and future residents of France from other EU Member States is such that it means that their future ‘right of residence’ depends on them being able to qualify for, and maintain, a commercial contract with a private enterprise. I cannot agree with the principle which underpins this situation and I cannot agree with the humanity of such an arrangement.         Sorry about the formatting of this I have 'pasted' it in and it seems to have a mind of its own!

Knowing the wit and humour which this Forum generates it is with no small amount of trepidation that I post the reply from Shuberth as to wher to stick the stickers!   you can place 2 on the front side of the helmet, and 2 on the back of the helmet. There are no exact rules, where to put, but mostly on front and backside. Mit freundlichen Grüßen/ Kind Regards

I have now received the items from Schuberth. They are colour matched to the helmet (black) but in the dark are reflective. They are produced on 3M Scotchlight Film and are an elongated oval shape.  There are four of them and each measure about 85mm x 35mm (highest and longest points). Schuberth haven't told me where to stick them (and I am NOT inviting suggestions!) so I have not yet got to the bottom (No!!!!!) of what this is all about. Will ask the nice Schuberth people again.

[quote user="Bugbear"] I always wear earplugs when on my bike to reduce wind noise etc. They are certainly not illegal. This explains why. ............although in my case, it's a bit late as I am already a bit deaf and suffer from tinnitus....[:)] [/quote]   Sorry! Could you repeat that? [:D]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"] The code de la route merely specifies that motorcycle users must wear a homologated crash helmet. Homologation is evidenced by a green NF sticker or an E-mark (normally found on the inside).  The latest versions numbered R22-04 and R22-05 feature the reflective strips and these are the only helmets currently permitted for sale in France.  Older versions where the homologation number ends in 01/02/03 do not have reflective strips and may no longer be offered for sale.  However, existing owners are permitted to continue using them.   [/quote] That is all I, too, could find but the helmet already has the reference nos inside to show it meets the standards but it does not have the 'French reflectors'. I suspect these refs nos refer to the shell and inner material/construction and it meeting manufacturing standards rather than it meeting any reflective requirements.  I say this only because if the helmet carries these numbers yet the manufacturer has an additional kit to meet French requirements I assume that these are outwith the R22-04 etc criteria. However, all will be revealed when the kit arrives and I have more to reflect on!

Does anyone know if there are any specific requirements regarding reflective material on bike helmets? I have just replaced my aged Schuberth with a new one and in the manual it mentions specific reflective decals for use in France.  The dealer had no idea so I emailed Schuberth in Germany and they are sending me a set. But I didn't know there was a specific requirement re these.  I will be interested to see what they look like!  Can't find mention in the Code de la Route (maybe I have missed it!).

They seem to be on sale and are talked about in wikipedia france but there is no link in there to the Code de la Route and nothing to suggest they are illegal.  How do instructors communicate with pupils? Extract from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casque_de_moto#Interphones   Il existe différents systèmes permettant de communiquer entre pilote et passager. Les plus connus sont les systèmes électroniques par liaison filaire ou radio. Ils sont communément appelés Intercom. Le pilote et le passager communiquent par l’intermédiaire d’un micro et d’une oreillette fixés sur l’oreille ou placés dans le casque. Micros et oreillettes sont connectés par l’intermédiaire d’un câble et d’un connecteur à un boîtier électronique qui assure l’amplification de la voix. Le boîtier électronique est généralement placé dans la poche du pilote ou du passager ou fixé sur la moto. L’alimentation électrique se fait soit par une pile soit via la batterie de la moto. En plus de la communication pilote passager les Intercoms peuvent offrir les possibilités suivantes : Communication moto à moto Contrôle automatique du volume en fonction de la vitesse (en fait du bruit ambiant) Radio FM intégrée Connexion au système audio de la moto Connexion à un lecteur MP3, un téléphone portable, une CB ou un GPS Compatibilité Bluetooth Réduction et/ou coupure du son lors d’une conversation ou d’une communication téléphonique Retour vocal Déclenchement par la voix Séparation source sonore pilote/passager Prise pour 3e casque (side-car) Coupure automatique de l’alimentation Certains constructeurs offrent sur leurs modèles Grand Tourisme des systèmes de communication embarqués sur la moto. L’Intercom est généralement couplé au système audio et au navigateur GPS. Il suffit au pilote et au passager de brancher le casque directement sur une prise spéciale de la moto. Les Intercoms électroniques souffrent parfois de problèmes de parasites ou de dégradation de la qualité sonore lorsque l’environnement devient bruyant (vitesse, vent, etc.). En effet, le bruit ambiant est également amplifié par l’Intercom, ce qui rend les communications difficiles à vitesse élevée. C’est pour cette raison que certains modèles sont équipés de filtres actifs anti-bruits et anti-parasites. On trouve également des systèmes acoustiques fonctionnant un peu comme le stéthoscope d'un médecin. Pilote et passager sont directement reliés par 2 tuyaux souples en PVC connectés aux micros et aux oreillettes. La voix circule directement d'une personne à l'autre à l'intérieur de ces tuyaux. La qualité du son est très bonne. Fonctionnant sans pile, ce système n'a pas besoin d'amplification et ne souffre d'aucun parasite. Il ne risque pas de tomber en panne contrairement aux modèles électroniques. En revanche il n’offre aucune possibilité de connexion externe. Pouvant se monter sur tout type de casque intégral, jet ou modulable, il fonctionne sans problème jusqu'a 150km/h. Pour améliorer le confort les micros et les oreillettes peuvent être intégrés au casque. Certaines marques proposent même des oreillettes ergonomiques qui s'adaptent à l'oreille de l'utilisateur grâce à un moulage que chaque personne réalise elle-même. Certains pays interdisent l'utilisation du téléphone portable avec haut-parleurs à cause du risque élevé d'accident qui en découle.

Further to the above in regard to retirement age. In UK, you can get your State Pension when you reach State Pension age. The State Pension age is currently 65 for men and 60 for women. However, the State Pension age for women is changing - it will rise gradually from age 60 to 65 from 2010 to 2020. From 6 April 2020, the State Pension age for both men and women will be 65. The state pension age for both men and women is to increase from 65 to 68 between 2024 and 2046, with each change phased in over two consecutive years in each decade. The first increase, from 65 to 66, will be phased in between April 2024 and April 2026; the second, from 66 to 67, will be phased in between April 2034 and April 2036; and the third, from 67 to 68, between April 2044 and April 2046. To find out your State Pension age put your date of birth in the calculator here: http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/resourcecentre/statepensioncalc.asp

I went through this with my late father-in-law and I agree with RH re the local GP but this leaflet may also be of interest Secondly, make sure that he is getting all the right benefits such as Disability Living Allowance as this can help defray costs. . . see here for example Details of Age Concern's Information Line is here they are excellent at giving sound practical advice The price of these things is well out of proportion to what they should cost.  Mind you that seems to go for most things for people with 'problems'. . .just look at what they charge for things like a table for a chair - the table is made of tubular steel and a bit of plywood and they try to sell them for £40!  It is a disgrace. If you want a new scoot get it via the internet.  There are loads to chose from and the price differential is massive. Also make sure that you get one without VAT. Some companies wont offer to exempt the VAT unless you ask for it.        

[quote user="Mel"] Hi Emily, I will be pleased to talk to you. I have emailed you with a perspective on the situation that many researchers have overlooked. I look forward to hearing from you... Mel [/quote]   Any chance you would let us in on the 'secret' of what has been missed?

[quote user="cooperlola"]I am curious about this (you have an e-mail from me).  My understanding has always been that if you were employed in France, you were not eligible for CMU entry but must be in a scheme related to your employment.  I had always been under the impression that CMU was for those most specifically not covered by any other scheme.  And thus, the statement still seems correct to me - you cannot join CMU if previously employed - only your work-based scheme.[/quote] You are the expert so if you are (as you say ) convinced that: 'you cannot join CMU if previously employed - only your work-based scheme'  then I accept what you say.

[quote user="Boiling a frog"] I would suggest that the statement is correct The only way for an INACTIVE person to gain the right of permanent residence is after 5 years uninterupted residence. After 5 years they can then, if they are inactive , have the right to access to health care via CMU. The other category's are workers and their families.,not inactives.Workers and their families do not access healthcare via CMU so why should the minister address that issue.The issue was inactives being excluded from health care via CMU .No worker or their family has been excluded from health care in France [/quote]   I maintain it is incorrect in its present form. Article 17 is entitled Article 17 Exemptions for persons no longer working in the host Member State and their family members and contains the exemptions to the 5 year rule.  You can't mention acquiring residence under the 5 year rule in the context of eligibility to access to the CMU without mentioning the entitlement of those 'persons no longer working in the host Member State and their family members'.  Is a person who has given up work INACTIVE?  If we can debate this then so will the CPAMs - I think it needs clarification now.  All they have to do is change the specific reference to the 5 year rule to one referring to lawful acquisition of permanent residence.  

[quote user="Clair"] For those who cannot demonstrate 5 years of regular and uninterrupted stay, access to the CMU can only be given when, having acquired a right to reside, such nationals are experiencing an accident of life leading them to lose their resources or their health insurance. [/quote] I am afraid this statement needs to be challenged.This wording is not acceptable as it stands as it is not supported by FACT.  The reason that 5 year residents get access to the CMU is that they become permanent residents and therefore have the same rights as French Nationals. What is wrong with this current statement is that it implies that the only way of becoming a Permanent Resident is via the 5 year rule....this IS NOT CORRECT.  I am sorry to say that whoever has been writing this stuff at the French Govt end needs another kick!! The Right of Permanent Residence is contained in Chapter IV of the EU Directive.  This has been transposed into French law. The 5 year rule is contained in Chapter IV (at Article 16)  BUT it is not the only way in that Chapter by which permanent residence may be obtained.  It would, therefore, be unlawful for the French Govt to say that it is only persons who achieve a right of residence by way of the 5 year rule who are eligible to join the CMU. . .ALL the categories in Chapter IV are eligible because permanent residents must have equal treatment. Will FHI take this up with the Embassy and FHM?      

[quote user="woolybanana'sbrother"] And I have a friend, early sixties, no E106, came here in late September 2007 from another European country but is Brit born. When he arrived he, he was apparently not allowed to join the CMU as it was closed for 'inactifs' in September. But the 'closing' date has now been shifted to November. Wat duz he do pleez? Can he join the CMU? By the way, the original French text said 'in the CMU' on 11th November, not legally resident (didnt it?)? How does he go about proving legal residence as he will not fill out a tax return for 2007 until May? [/quote] In his shoes I  would apply again (and if turned down appeal) saying that the only reason I was not affiliated to the CMU before November was as a result of the decision made to exclude me in September

[quote user="Sunday Driver"] "The impact of all new legislation is supposed to be assessed not assumed." You are assuming that the FCO did not assess the impact of the directive and did not discuss it with the French.  From the French point of view, there was to be no change in residency criteria, so we can only assume that the FCO took this stance into account at the time. Further, who's to say that a 'what if' scenario wasn't considered as well?  Such a potential change in criteria would likely to have been assessed in terms of it's future impact and it would have been reasonable to discount an unexpected punitive retrospective application in terms of heathcare. What if the French originally gave assurances that the situation would not change for existing expats, then took a political decision to reverse this position? [/quote] I was accepting as a start-point that the French Government would be honest with the British Govt in this matter - they would have nothing to gain in being otherwise as their plans had to be published by 2006.  If they were honest then their British counterparts failed to act professionally in briefing British Nationals. I didn't really understand the significance of the phrase 'there was to be no change in residence criteria'. The point I was making was that the British professionals had a responsibility to clarify how the French Govt would apply the Directive.  That duty was irrespective of what had or had not changed. The British professionals had a duty to find out what the intentions of each Member State was in regard to the application of the Directive so that those British professionals could provide guidance to British Nationals.  If they did find out then they did not provide guidance as we well know. As regards whether there was or was not 'change', the criterion covering healthcover for 'inactif' residents was affected to the extent that it changed the previous compulsory affiliation to state healthcover and the ban on private health insurance to the current arrangements.  This change was significant to existing residents affiliated to the CMU who were told they would no longer be legally resident if they did not have alternative healthcover.  Albeit things have now changed for them, this stance was undetected or unremarked upon by the British professionals in advance.  So too was the position, in regard to residence, of those people who may have been resident for up to 2.5 years on an E106 - they are no longer legally resident if they have no alternative healthcover e.g. they have been refused private healthcover.  This also means that their continuous legal residence for the 5 year rule on permanent residence is undermined. I don't know what actually happened before and when the UK Govt introduced its own legislation pursuant to the Directive but I do know from experience that the preparation of such legislation normally involves the preparation of a brief of what other parties (in this case Member States) are doing.  This is done to see if life can be made easier and other parties' ideas 'cribbed' and also to ensure that, if we are not in step with others, then we are clear as to why. If this information was not obtained then I would be surprised. So I still cannot accept that enough was done by those British professionals responsible for keeping British Nationals up-to-date.  

[quote user="Boiling a frog"] That is an extract from a European directive  long before the EU directive of 2004.So the UK Government were aware of this directive for many years ,what they were not aware of was the intention of the French Government to implement new measures in September of last year 2007 by using the directive to exclude EU citizens from CMU.That was a French Government decision and unless the British Secret service have spies in the French health ministry I cannot see how the FCO and British Embassy could possibly have forseen this. [/quote] To say that they would not expect things because that is the way it had been for a while is in itself a damning statement in regard to the professionalism of those involved.  The impact of all new legislation is supposed to be assessed not assumed. It wouldn't have been beyond the wit of a professional British rep involved in negotiations on the draft Directive to ask what the impact might be in various countries.  Equally, after publication of the Directive the 'professionals' should have known as there were certain requirements in the Directive such as: 'No later than 30 April 2006 the Commission shall submit a report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and the Council' and 'Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 April 2006.' and 'Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive together with a table showing how the provisions of this Directive correspond to the national provisions adopted.' [Articles 39 & 40] I thought the whole idea of the FCO/the Minister for Europe's staff/embassy staff etc was to keep in touch with what might be happening abroad.  It would not have taken M16 to determine how the French would be applying the new Directive - a simple question would have elicited that information as it was clearly not classified, publicity about changes being required by Article 34 of the Directive (even if the actualite left something to be desired!). It shouldn't have been too difficult for the FCO to keep an eye on what was happening as the French Embassy in London has a section dedicated to social/health matters contactable at [email protected] . Surely the FCO must have met with them after the Directive was published for the odd canapé or coffee...would they not have a professional interest in finding out what impact there may be on British Citizens? Equally, as the British Embassy in France hosts information for British Nationals including Living in France and healthcare etc matters, it would not be unreasonable to expect that someone from there would check with a contact in the French Govt to see if any new EU Directive would have any impact about which they would need to alert British Nationals. I am not at all forgiving of the British professionals who failed to check this out and alert people earlier.

[quote user="Boiling a frog"] I am fed up with the constant critism of Mr Murphy and the embassy staff  who have been negotiating on our behalf with little or any thanks. [/quote] I do not know what the embassy and the FCO are doing now so I cannot comment on that but they deserve a lot of criticism for not having their eye on the ball since at least 2004 when the Directive was published!  They have entered this at the last minute - after it has gone wrong- instead of trying to ensure the right thinking in the planning stages.  We all know it is easier to influence outcomes before positions start to become adopted rather than after.  We know that they were out of touch even in the autumn when this first broke. After all, the FCO and Embassy are supposed to be PROFESSIONALS at this type of activity. Maybe they lost the disc with the Directive on it[;-)]

[quote user="lebois"]But as we are now labeled 'Immigrants' for 5 years, and if without health cover we break 'the directive', then surely at best the term 'not legal Immigrant' would apply and worst 'Illegal Immigrant'.  We can only hope the CPAMs get their act together - soon! (14 months to E121 and counting!)http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/17/europe/EU-GEN-France-Immigration.php http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=January2008&file=World_News200801082438.xml [/quote] As you say, the problem  is that, technically, an 'inactif' - who has been resident for under five years and has now lost healthcover - will not be able to include the residence period before loss of healthcover for calculating permanent resident status because he/she will not meet the requirements of Article 16 which requires residence 'legally' for a 'continuous' period of five years. The clock would have to start again when healthcover is obtained and the residence becomes legal and the continuous period starts again. Article 16 General rule for Union citizens and their family members 1. Union citizens who have resided legally for a continuous period of five years in the host Member State shall have the right of permanent residence there. This right shall not be subject to the conditions provided for in Chapter III. So if someone has been in France for 2 years on an E106 which has now expired, he/she needs to have already complied with the requirement for alternative healthcover otherwise their residence is no longer 'legal' and their previous residence is technically no longer valid for the purposes of calculating continuous residence under Article 16.

[quote user="bodie"]I'm on  the search again.  Been trawling all the links everyone has kidly posted for me and my eyes are crossed from all the reading.  I'm still not clear about being entitled to the E 121.  This may be granted on the grounds of being in receipt of long term Incapacity Benefit, but my award is paid from income support IN LEIU of Incapacity Benefit (which includes severe disablement component)  so i'm not sure if this is the same thing. I suspect not as the wording of terms and conditions seems to be an exact science to the  benefit of the DWP when there's the chance of a loophole.  Can the E 121 be granted on the basis of being in receipt of DLA at all?  Hope someone out there can enlighten me. Thanks guys.[/quote]   I suggest you give the DWP a call If you want to know more about benefits and related healthcare cover write to: Department for Work and Pensions The Pension Service International Pension Centre Tyneview Park Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE98 1BA When you write, please tell us: your full name; your date of birth; and your National Insurance number (if you know it). If you are phoning or sending a fax from outside the UK, dial the international code, then: tel: 44 191 21 87777 fax: 44 191 21 83836 You can phone or fax The Pension Service, Tyneview Park, on: tel: 0191 21 87777 fax: 0191 21 83836 email:[email protected] If you are on holiday or you are visiting another EEA country for a short time, read booklet, “Health advice for travellers“, instead. You can get a copy from any UK Post Office, or further information is available from the internet at www.dh.gov.uk/travellers, from the DH Publications Orderline on 08701 555 455 or by emailing [email protected]. Guides Two guides published by the EC explain your rights when moving within the EU. One, “Your social security rights when moving within the European Union“, tells you more about the EC social security regulations and social security schemes in each of the other EEA countries. You can get this guide from the HM Revenue and Customs or the Department for Work and Pensions. You can also get it from the social security authorities in any other EEA country. The other, “The Community provisions on social security”, tells you about the EC social security regulations only. You can only get this guide online at http://bookshop.eu.int.

This statement is ambiguous and clearly needs formal clarification.  It would be useful if the recipient was to write back to clarify this...which in my opinion is nonsense - but nothing new there!  I believe it is nonsense because there is a requirement (see here) for persons intending to stay over three months to register their residence with the local mayor.  If the E106 was not acceptable then their stay over the three months period could not be approved .  By accepting the E106 then the Fr Govt accepts it meets the need to have an assurance maladie. Maybe we could ask Stephanie if the E106 will be accepted as une attestation d'assurance maladie-maternité for une carte de séjour "CE - non actif" [see here] I suspect that this is one of those things which local CPAMs throw in the mix from time-to-time just to keep us on our toes[:D].

I have just posted this Jim The EU Directive was issued in 2004 and was discussed long before that. With this in mind, if you were an E106 holder would you be satisfied that the UK gave you the information it should when it provided you with your E106 and afterwards? Do you feel that the UK had a responsibility to tell E106 holders- as British Citizens - more?  Did the DWP; FCO; and British Embassy exercise their duty of care toward the E106 holders? On 11 September 2007 the British Embassy said this For info, reassurance from the Health Ministry that the tightening of rules on healthcare provision will not be retrospective, so early retiree Brits already residing in France will be unaffected - they can continue to access healthcare. But the rules are different for newcomers - they will need medical cover pre-arrival (eg through the E106 form or if they don't qualify, then private insurance) and to cover any gap between the expiry of their E106 form and the time they turn retirement age. Full details communicated to DH/DWP/FCO below. That info - issued 3 years after the EU Directive was issued - was wrong, Article 34 of EU Directive 2004/38EC required member states to disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive. Do E106 holders feel that they received sufficient and accurate information in a timely fashion from the French AND British Governments? Article 34 Publicity Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication. If, as an E106 holder, you do feel aggrieved then I suggest that you consider making a formal complaint in the first instance to the British and French Departments you feel let you down and if you receive an unsatisfactory reply then consider writing to the national ombudsman. You can make these complaints prior to and in addition to submitting any appeals you may be considering to the French and British authorities. This chap felt aggrieved and took it to the UK Ombudsman and won http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/selected_cases/PCA/sc9903/c682b.html We will have to see what he says in reply.......[+o(]

[quote user="britgirl"]We were not entitled to E106 because my husband had not paid enough class1 contributions in the relevant qualifying period. The class 3 we paid did not count. We did not have E121. I am not eligible for my state retiremnt pension for another 10 years. We were affiliated to the CMU early last year, and had the 'new style' Carte Vitales with our photos on them. Hope that helps. Brit girl [/quote]   As Coops said the new rules allow people who were affiliated to the CMU before 23 November 2007 to retain their affiliation but the local CPAM offices are in a state of confusion over this. There is no reason why you cannot return to them with a copy of the information contained here http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm and in the attachments Liste de questions-réponses. Circulaire N°DSS/DACI/2007/418 du 23 novembre 2007 relative au bénéfice de la couverture maladie universelle de base (CMU) et de la couverture maladie universelle complémentaire (CMUc) des ressortissants de l’Union Européenne, de l’Espace économique européen et de la Suisse résidant ou souhaitant résider en France en tant qu’inactifs, étudiants ou demandeurs d’emploi Annexe 1 de la circulaire : Règles du droit au séjour des citoyens européens et conséquences au regard de l’accès à la CMU together with a covering letter requesting that they confirm your continuing eligibility as your CV (number etc....) was issued on ....date... which was before 23 November 2007. I would also encourage anyone with queries to contact FHI as Copps suggested.

[quote user="britgirl"]Widows. I have been following the health care changes with a great deal of interest.  As 'in actifs' and living off a govt. penion paying into URSSAf  etc and paying  top up insurance, we thought we were paying our way. Sadly in June of 2007 we discovered  that my husband had kidney cancer, and that it was also very aggressive. He died at the end of October  aged 55. .I  went to our local C.P.A.M office at Carhaix yesterday, who confirmed that as from the 31st March I would have to take out private health insurance, but also added that I would receive written confirmation of this sometime in February. I have to say that I,m sure she wasn't aware of the full implications of the latest rulings and was probably telling me as much as she knew herself.. We had not been resident in France for 5 years. I know that I am able to live off my entitlement to my husband's pension, but I thought that my Carte Vitale  would be O.K. for a year following his death, whilst I sorted out all the necessary bits and pieces, including , hopefully,selling the house before I returned to the U.K. I can only say that the care my husband received was superb and nothing was too much trouble. Any scans etc. were done as quickly as possible and the results made known very quickly. At all times were both treated with great coutesy and respect. If anyone has any further information, then I'd love to here from you. Many Thanks. Brit girl [/quote]   Were you still on an E106 or an E121 or were you already affiliated to the CMU?

If you are/were an E106 holder are you satisfied that the UK gave you the information it should when it provided you with your E106 and afterwards? Do you feel that the UK had a responsibility to tell you - as a British Citizen - more?  Did the DWP; FCO; and British Embassy exercise their duty of care toward you? This chap felt aggrieved and took it to the UK Ombudsman and won  http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/selected_cases/PCA/sc9903/c682b.html Article 34 of EU Directive 2004/38EC required member states to disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive. Do you feel that you received sufficient and accurate information in a timely fashion from the French AND British Governments? Article 34 Publicity Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication. If you do feel aggrieved then I suggest that you consider making a formal complaint in the first instance to the British and French Departments you feel let you down and if you receive an unsatisfactory reply then consider writing to the national ombudsman. You can make these complaints prior to and in addition to submitting any appeals you may be considering.