E106 : A worrying development

[cooperlola]

One of our correspondants, whose E106 expired a fortnight ago has, like many others, received a refusal of their appeal.

A ce jour, faute d'éléments nouveaux de la part de notre Caisse Nationale, nous appliquons à la CPAM  de.... la Loi 2006-911 du 24/07/2006 (article L121-1) : pour séjourner en France plus de 3 mois, le ressortissant doit disposer de ressources suffisantes ainsi que d'une assurance maladie.

En conséquence, les ressortissants britanniques ou communautaires inactifs ne peuvent pas faire valoir un droit au séjour en France en l'absence d'une couverture maladie préalable.

La situation est identique pour les détenteurs d'un E106 expiré (ce qui est votre cas).

Vous ne remplissez pas les conditions pour la CMU de base, et celle-ci ne peut pas constituer un élément de substitution.

Même si vous résidez déjà en France depuis le 3 septembre 2005, les dispositions de la Loi 2006-911 vous ramènent à une situation de primo-arrivant à expiration du E106 (car le E106 ne remplace pas une couverture maladie française préalable).

Translation :

To date, in the absence of new elements on the part of our Caisse Nationale, the CPAM des Deux-Sevres applies Law 2006-911, 24/07/2006 (article L121-1): in order to stay in France over 3 months, the citizen must have adequate resources, as well as health insurance.

As a result, in the absence of a prior health cover, inactive British or European nationals cannot assert a right to stay in France.

The situation is the same for holders of an expired E106 (which is your case).

You do not meet the requirements for basic CMU, and it cannot constitute an element of substitution.

Even as a resident in France since 3 September 2005, as per the provisions of Act 2006-911, on expiry of your E106 you are in the same position as a new arrival in France (as the E106 is not a substitute for prior French health cover).

This led FHI to investigate further, the implications of this reply.  What appears to be being said is that any time spent by "inactifs" here under the cover on an E106 (or perhaps all E-forms, this is not clear here) does not count towards legal residence, and may therefore not be included in any time which one builds up to achieve the 5 years required for automatic CMU eligibility.

The December statement issued by the Social Security department, states, in Annexe 2:

"De manière limitée dans le temps, seront également couverts les ressortissants communautaires inactifs et les membres de leur famille dans les hypothèses où la législation de leur Etat d’origine prévoit un maintien de droits en matière d’assurance maladie, à l’instar de ce qui existe dans notre législation interne. Cette situation qui se matérialise par la détention d’un formulaire E 106 ou bien d’une CEAM si la durée de maintien de droit est brève. En conséquence toutefois, la question de la régularité du séjour se posera à nouveau lorsque la couverture en matière d’assurance maladie prend fin."

Translation:

For a limited time, inactive European nationals and their family members will also be covered, in cases where the law of their country of origin provides for a continuation of rights when it comes to health insurance, as exists in our legislation. The situation which is materialised by the detention of an E106  form or a CEAM, is short (could also be translated as this situation is materialised by the detention of an E106  form or a CEAM if the period of cover is short.) As a result, however, the question of lawful stay would arise again when the health cover insurance comes to an end.

We are investigating further, but this is worth bearing in mind.  It may not be correct to assume that one only needs PHI for the difference in time between one's arrival, and 5 years uninterupted stay - but it may indeed be required for a full five years after E106 expiry (or until receipt of an E121).

We will keep you posted as to what we find out.

Translation added by Clair

[cooperlola]

We have discussed this at some length now, amongst ourselves and with outside parties.  Our own interpretation of the Social Security announcement, is that once an E106 expires, it merely means that one's legality of stay comes into question once again if you do not take out private cover immediately.  However, it is clear that once again individual CPAMs are putting their own "spin" on this - so it is just one more thing to be aware of.

We will seek clarification to ensure that our interpretation is the correct one.

[makfai]

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].

[cooperlola]

We did a bit of simultaneous posting there, Makfai!  Yes, the original correspondant is contesting this (as you might well imagine!).

[tigerfeet]

It may help others to know what grounds for appeal are being refused and which are being accepted.

[cooperlola]

When one is accepted, we will let you know.  However, because there are several stages to be gone through before anybody gets in front of a tribunal - thus far, nobody whom we know of has yet to get to the end of the process.  The response quoted above was from the first stage only - there are several more hoops to jump through yet.

All we can tell you at present, is that the commonality between those whom we know of who have been allowed (even temporary) access to CMU since the December statement is the CPAM (Limoges) not the grounds for their appeal.

[tigerfeet]

thanks coop`s              ok nobody accepted yet .

of those refused did they have cancer , heart problems , or others ?

[Helen]

 The CPAM in  this case  is (deliberately?) not making any reference to the 14th Dec circular so hopefully  whatever the interpretation of  that part of the  letter(and it seems to be ambiguous) has little  validity.

The question and answers section  of the circular makes it  clear that people with a 106 are legally in France because in order to remain legal they have to get an assurance maladie when it runs out.

'Il en résulte que pour continuer à être réguliers au séjour à l'expiration des droits conférés par le formulaire, ces personnes doivent se doter d’une couverture maladie' 

If the 106 did not fulfill  the assurance maladie part of the conditions then that persons residence would not be legal in the first place.

The five years residency rule requires that you have had legal and uninterrupted residence.

'La nouvelle directive européenne du 29/04/2004 précise qu'à l'issue de 5 années de résidence régulière et ininterrompue dans le pays d'accueil,

In any case it is for the prefectures to decide who fulfills the conditions for permanent residency not the CPAM.

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="tigerfeet"]

thanks coop`s              ok nobody accepted yet .

of those refused did they have cancer , heart problems , or others ?

[/quote]There are many - diabetics, cancer sufferers (both currently undergoing treatment and in the past) heart problems, hypertension, physical injuries,  sadly, the list is endless.  Many are retired police, fire fighters and members of the armed forces whose early retirement was enforced by the nature of their employment - ie a statutory early retirement age for their profession.  Very sad.

We believe they will be accepted in under the December statement, but in the interim they have no treatment available to them, and  some are trying to sell up, but it's not easy given the time available to them, and the fact that they are ill.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Helen"]

 The CPAM in  this case  is (deliberately?) not making any reference to the 14th Dec circular so hopefully  whatever the interpretation of  that part of the  letter(and it seems to be ambiguous) has little  validity.

The question and answers section  of the circular makes it  clear that people with a 106 are legally in France because in order to remain legal they have to get an assurance maladie when it runs out.

'Il en résulte que pour continuer à être réguliers au séjour à l'expiration des droits conférés par le formulaire, ces personnes doivent se doter d’une couverture maladie' 

If the 106 did not fulfill  the assurance maladie part of the conditions then that persons residence would not be legal in the first place.

The five years residency rule requires that you have had legal and uninterrupted residence.

'La nouvelle directive européenne du 29/04/2004 précise qu'à l'issue de 5 années de résidence régulière et ininterrompue dans le pays d'accueil,

In any case it is for the prefectures to decide who fulfills the conditions for permanent residency not the CPAM.

 

[/quote]Yes, Helen, we tend to agree.  Whatever happens, the CPAM concerned has left itself open to the next stage of the appeal, which is now being gone through.

It does cause a problem for those who have no cover at present, though, as their residency is technically illegal until the CPAMs enforce the December statement.  If you have a quick look at Jim Murphy's blog:

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/jim_murphy/archive/2008/01/11/15734.aspx

you will see from one poster "Neville" that his own CPAM is already telling E106 expirees this.

[Clair]

This thread has been split and the discussion can be found here:

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1135501

[tigerfeet]

[quote user="cooperlola"]There are many - diabetics, cancer sufferers (both currently undergoing treatment and in the past) heart problems, hypertension, physical injuries,  sadly, the list is endless.  Many are retired police, fire fighters and members of the armed forces whose early retirement was enforced by the nature of their employment - ie a statutory early retirement age for their profession.  Very sad.

We believe they will be accepted in under the December statement, but in the interim they have no treatment available to them, and  some are trying to sell up, but it's not easy given the time available to them, and the fact that they are ill.

[/quote]

What a sad state this has come too , glad to see mad max was seperated out.

[cooperlola]

Yes it is sad.  I hate to say this, but I think the sadder it's getting, the more the authorities are understanding what they have done.  That is an apalling state of affairs in my book, and in this day and age it should not take human suffering to actually happen before those in authority take notice.  This should have been foreseen - it certainly was by those who are now sorely affected.

[Deimos]

(A bit if an aside but) One thing is the case of the Ghanaian woman who required dialysis.  Her visa had long ago expired and she was already in the UK illegally and being treated by the NHS.  After many checks on treatment availability in Ghana the UK authorities deported her and she is now receiving treatment in Ghana.  What I find interesting is how the UK press has "latched-on" to this story and made quite a big thing of it.  The woman was illegally in the UK, the UK government checked she would be treated OK in her home country, etc. before deporting her and her treatment continued fine.  Contrast that to the withdrawal of treatment from loads of British citizens by a retrospective law change.  That these British citizens have no option to return home to get treatment, are already legally residing in another EU country, etc. - yet the British press have not really picked-up the story to any great extend.  I'm not arguing about the rights and wrongs of the case - just the comment it has invoked when compared to the actions by the French.

Ian

[cooperlola]

I've always maintained that it's because we're perceived as lazy, rich, middle class types living the good life, that we're not very interesting to the British media - except in so far as it pleases the "serves you right" mob. 

I bet those who await treatment don't feel too lucky right now.