Jump to content

Citizens Signpost Service Reply


Recommended Posts

This has just landed in my emails

It's the final bit of the reply to my enquiry about what happens when my E106 runs out and the gap until my E121 kicks in

It follows all the stuff we all familiar with,

The specific condition as relates to health insurance in Directive

2008/34 is that you must “have comprehensive sickness insurance cover

in the host Member State”. There is no requirement that this needs to

be private cover .

You should also know that the same

Directive gives you a right to equal treatment, which means that you

cannot be treated less favourably than French nationals. Article 24

specifically states that “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.”

"Whilst the French government is

entitled to change rules on healthcare rules for “inactive” persons,

this is subject to the condition that the new French rules apply

equally and in the same manner to French nationals and EU citizens.

In the event that the new French rules apply solely to EU citizens,

whilst allowing French nationals to remain covered by CMU or the CPAM,

this could be considered unlawful discrimination under EU law. In that

event, as a matter of EU law, you must be entitled to continue to

affiliate to the CMU or the CPAM under the same conditions as French

nationals."

We hope this answers your query.

Yours sincerely,

Citizens Signpost Service

The

advice given by the Signpost Service legal experts is independent

advice and shall not be considered to be the opinion of the European

Commission. As such it will not in anyway bind the Commission.

Regards Joshua [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is that you must “have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State”. There is no requirement that this needs to be private cover .

I'm missing something here - given that the you will be no longer able to join the French scheme and your British entitlement will have lapsed - what else is there ?

I don't know about [:D][:D]

I think[8-)][8-)][8-)] is in order........

Are you thinking that this means you will not need Private cover because the French will have to provide a system for you to be affiliated to ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something here but the

Citizen Signpost reply seems to say (not suggest but actually say)

that what the French are doing excluding non-French "ianctif"

EU citizens from the CMU is actually illegal. 5-year rule seems not

the issue, just a different clause in the directive the French claim

to be using to expel peope from CMU cover.

Maybe they could give some more details

about exactly which clauses make the action of discriminating against

non-French EU citizens illegal ?

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is so, Deimos.  I have always believed this is discriminatory, depending of course upon what happens in the future to French "inactifs."  Dress it up however you like, it has always seemed to me to be a thinly veiled attack on anybody who's not French by birth.  A good, solid part of our case, to my mind.  I've said so in my own letters to MPs/MEPs etc. And FHI  is actively looking at this angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Joshua"]

In the event that the new French rules apply solely to EU citizens,

whilst allowing French nationals to remain covered by CMU or the CPAM,

this could be considered unlawful discrimination under EU law. In that

event, as a matter of EU law, you must be entitled to continue to

affiliate to the CMU or the CPAM under the same conditions as French

nationals.

[/quote]

This seems to be perfectly clear and means that the proposed changes are unlawful and should be withdrawn immediately.

Have you forwarded this to the MEP who has taken up these cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt this is posted somewhere, but it may provide some answers to queries just posed.  Go to the address given for the pdf version and read it for yourself I've just cut and pasted and itlicised some relevant bits - sorry it is long nevertheless.  However, I cannot believe Sarko and his cronies haven't got it all covered before launching the bombshell.

Chris

DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004

at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_158/l_15820040430en00770123.pdf

(17) Enjoyment of permanent residence by Union citizens who have chosen to settle long term in

the host Member State would strengthen the feeling of Union citizenship and is a key element

in promoting social cohesion, which is one of the fundamental objectives of the Union. A

right of permanent residence should therefore be laid down for all Union citizens and their

family members who have resided in the host Member State in compliance with the

conditions laid down in this Directive during a continuous period of five years
without

becoming subject to an expulsion measure

(18) In order to be a genuine vehicle for integration into the society of the host Member State in

which the Union citizen resides, the right of permanent residence, once obtained, should not

be subject to any conditions.

(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.

but this seems to be be what Sarko's banking on:

(21) However, it should be left to the host Member State to decide whether it will grant social

assistance during the first three months of residence, or for a longer period in the case of

job-seekers, to Union citizens other than those who are workers or self-employed persons
or

who retain that status or their family members, or maintenance assistance for studies,

including vocational training, prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence, to these

same persons.

However there is also this ( but what does it mean in practical terms?):

(29) This Directive should not affect more favourable national provisions

 and this - is this a life saver?:

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 (
ie health insurance and working or self-employed)

Equal Treatment:( this may be a help too)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, Chris, but take a look at point 18 and think about it.  Those of us who were established here before October 1st, had already gained the right to permanent residency.  It's a short hop then to suggest that none of these people can be subject to conditions at all - they already have the right, 5 years or not.

Have you read Makfai's excellent paper on this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I thought it was me reading to much into this reply !

It was late when I recieved it by email and sometimes you interpret it the way you would like to see it.

I'm going to submit a complaint to the EU Ombudsman using the reply from the CSS claiming  unfairness and  discrimination

He's based in Paris

Wish me look

Joshua[:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Joshua"]This has just landed in my emails
It's the final bit of the reply to my enquiry about what happens when my E106 runs out and the gap until my E121 kicks in

It follows all the stuff we all familiar with,

The specific condition as relates to health insurance in Directive 2008/34 is that you must “have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State”. There is no requirement that this needs to be private cover .

You should also know that the same Directive gives you a right to equal treatment, which means that you cannot be treated less favourably than French nationals. Article 24 specifically states that “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.”

"Whilst the French government is entitled to change rules on healthcare rules for “inactive” persons, this is subject to the condition that the new French rules apply equally and in the same manner to French nationals and EU citizens.

In the event that the new French rules apply solely to EU citizens, whilst allowing French nationals to remain covered by CMU or the CPAM, this could be considered unlawful discrimination under EU law. In that event, as a matter of EU law, you must be entitled to continue to affiliate to the CMU or the CPAM under the same conditions as French nationals."

We hope this answers your query.

Yours sincerely,

Citizens Signpost Service

The advice given by the Signpost Service legal experts is independent advice and shall not be considered to be the opinion of the European Commission. As such it will not in anyway bind the Commission.

Regards Joshua [:D]

[/quote]

 

Forgetting the fact that the legal experts at the Signpost Service cannot get the reference of the Directive correct I have found this aspect confusing.

 

The inequality mentioned here is based on Article 24 of the Directive which says:

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.

What I don't understand is why the Signpost Service legal experts feel that the words 'Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law,' cannot be used by the French Govt to excuse any 'inequality' created by this Directive.  Is the Directive 'secondary law' or not?  I hope they are correct and it is not. So saying any challenge is a good challenge in my book!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

{template="widgetContainer" group="global" app="core" params="'footer', 'horizontal'"https://www.frenchentree.com/}
×
×
  • Create New...