Experts please save me the trouble...

[woolybanana]

of hunting through all the stuff as it is not for me. Are the following couple entitled to CMU cover:

5 years paying taxes in France, own house etc, not in health system? 

Just refused CMU. Is this correct?

[Clair]

[quote]

If you have been continuously resident in France for five years or more

If you have been continuously resident in France for a period of

five years or more, you will be able to join the state healthcare

system, on the same basis as a French national, regardless of your

previous circumstances. This right is not affected by holidays and

return visits to the UK of short duration (see below).

Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC states that

"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. Continuity of residence shall not be

affected by temporary absences not exceeding a total of six months a

year, or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military

service, or by one absence of a maximum of twelve consecutive months

for important reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth, serious

illness, study or vocational training, or a posting in another Member

State or a third country."

For the text of the French Government statement see

here

Also see

here for the EU Directive

http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/

[/quote]

[cooperlola]

Really interesting one this.  In theory at least, the quote from our website which Clair has given you is right.  However (there's always one), the proviso is that the five years should have been spent legally.  One might argue that, if they had no health cover, they were living here illegally and thus don't comply, unless of course they had private health insurance - but even that wasn't legal until November '07.  How have they coped until now?

It doesn't surprise me that they've been refused, to be honest.  But I think, if they were prepared for a fight, they might have a case, if they can persuade the powers that be to interpret Article 16 in that way....  It would be interesting to know how they get on.

I think they've got problems ahead.

[mint]

Coops, I thought you were.........er..........relaxing at home at the weekend?[:D]

[AnOther]

If there is a prima facia case for acceptance on the basis of the 5 years residency then the first step must surely be to determine on exactly what grounds they have been refused as without that crucial piece of information it's difficult to see how the decision can be challenged without just going round in circles.

 

[woolybanana]

Yep, I gonna fone for them on Monday to see what grubby little secrets I can discover.

THANKS GUYS.

[Scooby]

Just curious - but if someone didn't have health insurance but had sufficient resources to pay for any healthcare surely they must be legally resident?  Afterall private health insurance is only good for the first year of any long term illness?

[AnOther]

There is certainly scope for a differential to be made between the two and I think the rules do specify health insurance do they not ?

This makes sense because with insurance you are covered by fact but with 'sufficient resources' technically you are not, and what are 'sufficient resources' anyway. Logically it must mean enough money to pay for any and all eventualities but I suspect there will be very few who could privately fund something like the treatment and care Coops has received since her horrific accident for instance and if they could then paying for insurance in the first place would likely not have been an intolerable burden on them so they would probably have it.

Additionally an insurance policy is a simple document to produce, if required, whereas claiming 'sufficient resources' is far too nebulous besides which those blessed with pockets that deep could quite possibly be less than willing to disclose all their assets for such purposes [;-)]

Still, lets wait and see what wooly unearths.

[Ron Avery]

WB. If they can prove residency and get in the CMU Base on residency grounds they might wish they hadn't bothered.  Its almost certain that they will have to back pay their contributions to the CMU base, of course based on the 5 year's of tax advices.

URSSAF are unforgiving and not at all like the tax people who seem grateful that some english actually pay taxes and have only not bothered to for 6 or 7 years because a bloke in the bar told them you don't have to!!  I know people who were found to have not fully declared their UK taxed income to CPAM and were made bring their payments up to date by the end of the financial year as well as pay their normal contributions.

[woolybanana]

Thanks Ron, I'll certainly tell them that too when I see them tomorrow.

[BJSLIV]

Just curious - but if someone didn't have health insurance but had sufficient resources to pay for any healthcare surely they must be legally resident? 

Legally resident, but as Ron has pointed out illegally not paying their dues!

[cooperlola]

[quote user="BJSLIV"]

Just curious - but if someone didn't have health insurance but had sufficient resources to pay for any healthcare surely they must be legally resident? 

Legally resident, but as Ron has pointed out illegally not paying their dues!

[/quote]That's the rub.  Until the new rules were introduced, it was illegal not to join the state system (as it still is for French nationals, afaik.)

[Scooby]

I agree in the case of the OP's friends - it was more a query for those inactifs planning a move to France.  It does seem an anomaly that you are required to provide your own health insurance cover for potentially 5 years, but that no such insurance cover is available - unless you never needed to claim! It would seem a better option to have private cover in the UK then at least it would give you the six month period of grace that you would need to get back into the UK system (provided, of course, that you had somewhere to return to in the UK if the need arose).

[Sunday Driver]

Contributions are only due as from the date of registration for CMU de base.  If WB's couple have never been registered before, then they will have had no previous liability, therefore no reason to back pay......[;-)]

 

 

 

 

 

[BJSLIV]

But prior to the "Great Exclusion" wasn't it a legal requirement to register?

or to look at it another way

To be legally resident in France one needed health cover of some sort.

Knowing how the bureaucratic mind works, I won't be surprised to find that the reason entrance to the system has been denied is that their five years qualification period will end when they have been resident with health cover for five years.

 

 

[Sunday Driver]

Yes, it was a legal requirement to register, but not having registered, they haven't had the benefit of that state cover so they can't be retrospectively charged for it.

As you say, having failed to comply with the law, it's likely that have been assessed as not having been in legal residence for those five years, thereby they are excluded from applying for CMU. 

So, the clock starts afresh......?

 

 

[BJSLIV]

So, the clock starts afresh......?

But without any free period via E Forms......