Falling through the net

[Nessie]

Now that the November 23rd issue now seems to be resolved, what's the likely outcome for a 60 year old, about to move to France and live permanently with his wife in the house that they purchased 2 years ago?  The official version seems to be that I'm OK till Jan 2010 (I retired Dec 2007 aged 60.5) and have to take out private health cover till June 2012 when I'm 65.

Is this the sort of thing that gets taken up at Strasbourg when somebody questions why, after paying contributions in another European country for nearly 40 years, the right to health cover is no longer transferable to another member state? 

Tell me which railings-I'll bring my own chains.

Alan D

[Russethouse]

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1182507/ShowPost.aspx

It might be worth you replying to the above thread.

[Boiling a frog]

I think you will find that the right to obtain health cover by way of transferring your rights via an E121  for all EU countries is dependant on reaching state retirement age ,in the UK at the moment it is 65 for men,60 for women,if in receipt of an old age pension.For some other countries the retirement age is 60 yrs

That is if you are not working or seeking work,ie you are inactive.

In your case you never did have the right to have your health cover transferred to France,you would have had to pay into the French health system after your E106 entitlement had run out. 

I wonder just how you would envisage constructing a piece of legislation that would give equality to everyone in all the member states if they did not set the parameters as state retirement age.Many people in the UK ""retire"from their work at 50yrs of age(such as police officers).Do you suggest that they should be entitled to health care in another EU country by way of an E121.

Also bear in mind that all EU countries are free to administer and legislate just how their social security and health systems work.  

[makfai]

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

[sunshine 2]

 

 

[Will]

Unless all EU member states had identical health and retirement systems it would be impossible to transfer rights directly between them. As has been said before, the E121 allows a considerable degree of transferability but that only applies to people above the state retirement age for their home country.

You are in fact lucky to get a period of E106 cover from the British government. Few other states grant their inactive, early retired, former residents even that. Any rocking the boat at Strasbourg would, most likely, result in the withdrawal of that particular concession in order to bring all states into line with each other.

 

[Russethouse]

Isn't Alan D's point that he bought a house and made plans when the old rules applied but now finds can he cannot actually follow up the course of action as the rules in France have changed ?

If so, that is just the same position as at least a couple of other forum members.

[cooperlola]

Makfai is better informed on the law in this case than I, but the critical point which could be made in our o/p's case is that the EU law being used to define the health insurance with community citizens must now have to live in France if "inactive" is 2004/38/EC.  Article 10 states:

 

(20) In accordance with the prohibition of discrimination on

grounds of nationality, all Union citizens and their

family members residing in a Member State on the basis

of this Directive should enjoy, in that Member State,

equal treatment with nationals in areas covered by the

Treaty, subject to such specific provisions as are

expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law.

 

Now, to my mind, if French nationals (and non EU citizens who have the right to reside) can benefit from CMU, then you should be allowed to pay into it too.  Thus I believe one still has a case - even though one might well argue that individual governements may make any health provisions they wish.  However, what it seems to me they cannot do, is discriminate against you for being a non-French European.  That is the argument which I would make to the European Commission.  Want to give it a go?

[Boiling a frog]

Article 24

Equal treatment

1. Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly

provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens

residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the

host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the

nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty.

The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members

who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the

right of residence or permanent residence.

My interpretation of this is

One must be complying with the rules laid out in the directive in order to have the same rights as a national of the host state

The rules are clear,if you wish to stay for more than 3 months you must not be a burden on the state and have health cover

If you do not comply with these two conditions then

one is not residing on the basis of this directive

[LanguedocGal]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

(20) In accordance with the prohibition of discrimination on

grounds of nationality, all Union citizens and their

family members residing in a Member State on the basis

of this Directive should enjoy, in that Member State,

equal treatment with nationals in areas covered by the

Treaty, subject to such specific provisions as are

expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law.[/quote]

Coops, I generally agree with you on this health issue, but not in this case.

[quote user="cooperlola"]Now, to my mind, if  .... (and non EU citizens who have the right to reside) can benefit from CMU, then you should be allowed to pay into it too.  Thus I believe one still has a case [/quote]But what has EU Laws got to do with the rights and status of ‘’Non-EU Citizens’’?  This is not as straightforward as it might appear and people ought to stop trying to use it to justify their grievances against the changes.  In order for non-EU citizens to reside permanently in any EU country, they generally have to satisfy a multitude of conditions (including financial/visa/interviews at embassies etc etc) that EU citizens do not. What is required is determined by the bilateral agreements that EU countries have with the individual countries and some are more stringent than others, but that’s not EU business.  Furthermore, and perhaps even more important, is that the non-discrimination element of the EU regulations quoted above relates to ‘Union Citizens’  no relevance whatsoever to the status and rights of ‘’non Union Citizens’’. What exactly does EU regulations have to do with this category of residents? Do EU citizens want to go through the same hoops they have to (medicals/financial/visa etc) before being allowed to settle within EU member states?

As EU Citizens, we benefit from  EU laws and some then rile against those that ‘appear’ to discriminate against us on the surface. Within EU Law, individual countries have the right to determine their own health policies. The fact that non-EU citizens can join the CMU, having met the extremely stringent settlement conditions, is NOT an EU matter. However, there would be an argument, if some EU nationals were given this right and others not, which is not the case here.

[quote user="cooperlola"]However, what it seems to me they cannot do, is discriminate against you for being a non-French European. [/quote]

But is that what is happening? Were the OP to be an early retired non-French EU citizen who had lived and worked in France and cotisé on the same basis as a French national for the relevant years, then there would be a 'discrimintation' case to answer. Benefits from la Sécu stem from contributions (including the high employers contributions) made over their working lives IN FRANCE, where they’ve taken their early retirement. EU early retired, like the OP, have not made these contributions in France and have not been resident here, so where is the discrimination? The alternative would imply that La sécu gives EU settlers 'preferential' treatment. (The fact that UK rules are based on residence has no bearing here). 

I agree with Will’s line of thinking. From a British taxpayer perspective, the British government ought to abolish the benefits of the E106 in order to put British citizens moving to other EU countries on an equal footing with other EU citizens and save a few bob. 

As far as the OP is concerned, what has happened isn’t pleasant, but c’est la vie. We all make plans based on current conditions and these can change at anytime in our home countries too. The OP has the advantage of knowing before upping sticks, which was not the case with those who had been forced into the system and then unceremoniously kicked out again. That was a REAL argument: the OP’s one is emotional, but has no logical basis.

Edit: my post crossed with that of BaF

[cooperlola]

My point is that you might be able to argue (and I'm not saying you can) that a French person in the same position would certainly be  not only allowed but obliged to join CMU.  Thus, not allowing a non-French european to do the same discriminates against him on the grounds of nationality.  You may or may not agree with this.  However, this law is the one which the French authorities have used to bring the changes in - so if they believe it applies to them then its article 10 should too.

But as I say, I'm no expert.  However, I (and a few others who are more knowledgeable than I) think there may be a case to be made here via Europe on these grounds.