Follow-up to E106 : A worrying development

[makfai]

[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for alternative healthcover otherwise their residence is no longer 'legal' and their previous residence is technically no longer valid for the purposes of calculating continuous residence under Article 16.

[Chassaing]

Thanks Makfai, brilliant work.

The 'quota issue' is getting around the world, Africa and Asia are now reporting a similar view on Mr Sarkozy's policies.

http://www.indiaenews.com/europe/20080124/93473.htm