Jump to content
Complete France Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 548
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your MEP can be found here

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/zoneList.do?country=FR&language=EN

your UK MP can be found here

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/clomps.cfm

I am still trying to establish who exactly attended "the meeting" between France and the UK where the conditions were hammered out.  These are the critical people, it seems to me.  Does anybody have a handle on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all cases in UK there are several MEPs who represent your area (in my cae there are 9!). You can use this site to write to all your MEPs at once http://www.writetothem.com/

I have written once so far in the following terms

 

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Brian Simpson MEP
Den Dover MEP
John Whittaker MEP
Gary Titley MEP
Arlene McCarthy MEP
David Sumberg MEP
Sajjad Karim MEP
Robert Atkins MEP
Chris Davies MEP

North West

Saturday 22 September 2007

 

Dear David Sumberg, Den Dover, Gary Titley, Arlene McCarthy, Sajjad Karim, Robert Atkins, Chris Davies, Brian Simpson and John Whittaker,

I will be writing in more detail later but I wanted to draw your attention to the problems being experienced by UK citizens residing in France in respect of future health care provision.

The French are just about to change their system so that persons who are not employed or self-employed will be required to seek private health insurance. Although the UK does not apply this directive the French policy is in-line with EU directives.

The issue that has caused serious concern is how this will be applied to UK citizens who are not employed/self-employed but are ALREADY RESIDENT in France.
 
There is a lack of clarity over whether this policy will be applied retrospectively with the British Embassy in Paris saying: 'However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.' while the French have announced: 3) Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.
http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

If, as is suggested, the ruling is applied retrospectively then this creates a serious issue for some residents who are currently part of the French CMU (http://www.cmu.fr/site/cmu.php4?Id=5)

The suggestion is that the CMU was not meant for the Brit resident and that they have been 'milking' the system. The reality is that if the CMU system was not meant for ALL residents then it should have been designed appropriately at the time. Don't blame the residents, blame the law-makers. After all, the system is not that old and these types of things are supposed to be prepared by top class professionals! However, the way it was designed, meant that 'inactive' residents were legally and compulsorily swept up in it. They were PROHIBITED from obtaining personal insurance and had to join. That is why there are as yet no significant offerings of private health insurance in France

As regards 'inactive' Brit residents in France needing health care there are three main categories.

Firstly, there are those people who have abused the system by avoiding paying into it.

Equally, there are people who became resident with pre-existing health conditions but genuinely believed that the system as it applied in France (joining the CMU after the E106) was fair. Their thinking on this being based on a comparison of what was on offer in UK where residence automatically means free health care.

The 'new' Brit retired residents in France saw that in France contributions were payable (8%) and a mutelle might be necessary to cover the difference. So, in essence, this meant that they believed they were making a contribution to their health care in France while there were no similar contributions required of new EU residents in UK. If anything the Brit newly residing in France may have felt that, to some extent, they had the moral high ground - at least they were contributing something. More than that - that 'something' had been set by the French Govt so the new resident could hardly be deemed unreasonable if he/she assumed the amount was acceptable to the Govt.

In fact, how many of us bother to check what international financial agreements might be underpinning the various EU agreements - including cross-border health care? We just take these things at face value looking at what they mean to us in practical terms.

There also is a third category of people, i.e. those who became resident and later developed health conditions. They too will have believed that they were making a contribution to health care but now that they need it are being deprived of it.

I have nothing but condemnation for the first category who have ripped off the system but for the remaining two categories I do have both understanding and sympathy.

The fact that these latter two categories - who came to France legally and in good faith - may have pre-existing health conditions which might prevent private insurers offering them private health insurance is a serious matter. It is equally problematic if their health places the cost of insurance beyond their means. Must they now give up their residence? Would this be a 'reasonable' and 'proportionate' result of this change?

What is more, the French Govt has made the decision on this at a time when its own private health insurance industry is not yet geared up to competitively deal with these clients. This means that the effect on these residents cannot have been properly assessed by the French Govt. before the decision was taken.

Frankly, the problems with the cost of the French Health System will not be fixed by this change - its problems run deeper than that - but on a personal basis I have no objections to the French introducing measures to reduce the financial burden in this manner. However, I do not support the retrospective application as I believe its effect will have a disproportionate impact on some existing residents. I also believe that this effect cannot have been adequately assessed in terms of alternative provision - i.e. private insurance - because that 'industry' is not in place.

I believe that the decision to apply the change to existing residents may be 'ultra vires'. I see at as 'unreasonable' and having a 'disproportionate' effect.

I seek your help in ensuring that existing UK citizens who became resident in France in good faith under the then existing legislation/arrangements and who are either covered by an E106 or already part of the CMU should not be affected by this change in policy. It should not be applied retrospectively.


Yours sincerely,

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also written to the British Embassy in Paris:

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:49 PM

Subject: Re: Comment from .......... - General


Thank you for your reply. 

 

Could you clarify two points?

 

FIRSTLY

You say, inter alia,  that:

 

However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of
healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the
French system will not be affected.

However you refer me to http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm which says inter alia,  that:

 

Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.

These two statements do not seem compatible so what is the correct position?

 

SECONDLY

 

Point d'information: Affiliation à la CMU pour les ressortissants britanniques inactifs

 

 

Why does this only apply to les ressortissants britanniques inactifs

 

Thank you once again for your help.

 

 

Regards

 

and the French Embassy in London

 

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:28 AM

Subject: Advice


 

I would be grateful if you would clarify if para 3

3) Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.

applies to only those in para 2

 

2) Il n'y a aucune modification pour les personnes qui peuvent présenter une attestation (E 106 ou E 121) de droit aux prestations d'assurance maladie délivrée par l'administration britannique. Ils continuent à pouvoir s'inscrire auprès de la CPAM de leur lieu de résidence pour bénéficier des prestations françaises servies pour le compte du régime britannique, aussi longtemps que ces attestations sont valables.

or does para 3 apply to those who are 'inactive' but who are not in possession of a current E106 and already a part of the CMU?

 

 

The reason I ask this is that the British Embassy in Paris said yesterday:

From: Public.Paris@fco.gov.uk

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:22 PM

Subject: RE: Comment from.............. - General


Hello

 

Thank you for contacting the Public Enquiries section of the British Embassy in Paris. Please take a look at the following updated information for healthcare coverage in France:

 


HEALTHCARE PROVISION IN FRANCE

The British Embassy are in close touch with the French Ministry of Health to clarify the situation regarding healthcare provision for EU citizens who are inactive and below retirement age in France.

The French authorities are applying strictly the EU Directive (2004/38) which will mean modifying the healthcare coverage available to some inactive people, including early retirees, from other EU countries who will be taking up residence in France.

However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.

The French Ministry of Health has issued a statement regarding healthcare coverage for inactive people from the UK and other EU countries.

For further information, please contact:  

http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a couple of other concerns one being that people who do not have access to this (or similar) Forum may still believe what was said in the Telegraph article

Compromise on French reform plans By Peter Pallot  Last Updated: 12:01am BST 20/09/2007

We need someone (preferably with connections in the world of journalism) to correct this.

 

My other concern is for those whose E106 will expire shortly. 

 

I believe the 6 month's grace period granted to people in the CMU is inequitable as it does not apply to those whose E106 might be about to expire.

The UK Government may be able to help here by agreeing to extend anyone's E106 until the same extension date for people already in the CMU. This would be in order not only on the grounds of equitability but also practicality - it would give time for the insurance industry to come up with products.

The French Government could obviously see the need for a grace period in regard to CMU holders but appear to be unconcerned about the E106 holders who are faced with exactly the same difficulty. It doesn't matter who is paying for your health care now it is all about the practicalities finding an alternative provider in the future.

I would recommend that E106 holders who find themselves facing the imminent termination of their cover consider lobbying DWP; British Embassy; their MP and MEPs and any passing journalist to support the idea of a temporary extension to the same date as given to those already in the CMU.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the Telegraph article is concerned, Makfai, might I suggest that, at least initially, one clicks the "have your say" button, and refers the posters to the contradictory French statement.  That may get Mr Pallot's attention - he has certainly not replied to my e-mail thus far!  I've done it, let's see...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as MEP's are concerned, we vote for a French MEP so we should not forget to lobby them.  Any chance that somebody (maybe Clair, sorry!) might provide a good French translation of the above letter, for us to send?

And whilst we are on the subject of who votes for whom, don't forget to register to vote in the UK, guys and gals!  If we suddenly want our representatives to lobby on our behalf, then we need to have a say, for goodness sake.  The appropriate form is here

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/documents/overseas_registration.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="cooperlola"]

 Any chance that somebody (maybe Clair, sorry!) might provide a good French translation of the above letter, for us to send?

[/quote]

I would not like to put my letter forward as the most articulate or accurate expression of our views!  It was only my opinion at that time. 

For example, it lacks the point to be made about the inequitability of the lack of a grace period for E106 holders and also does not seek the clarification of why the French statement is entitled 'les ressortissants britanniques inactifs.'  Although we have been told that other EU countries do not have the same problem I would like to see an official explanation.

I will be sending a further letter to raise these issues as, when I wrote the first letter, I did not want to cloud the focus on the main issue of the polciy being applied retrospectively

However, feel free to do what you want with my letter and to plagiarise it as you wish if you think it could be of help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Puzzled"]

There is also the signpost service. This is for queries on EU law only and its interpretation.  I have written to them to see whether these proposed changes contravene any EU law. I am still waiting for clarification on a few points but will post when I hear anything.

http://ec.europa.eu/citizensrights/front_end/index_en.htm

[/quote]

 

That looks a useful site along with its partner http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/site/index_en.htm   Well spotted!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="makfai"][quote user="cooperlola"]

 Any chance that somebody (maybe Clair, sorry!) might provide a good French translation of the above letter, for us to send?

[/quote]

I would not like to put my letter forward as the most articulate or accurate expression of our views!  It was only my opinion at that time. 

For example, it lacks the point to be made about the inequitability of the lack of a grace period for E106 holders and also does not seek the clarification of why the French statement is entitled 'les ressortissants britanniques inactifs.'  Although we have been told that other EU countries do not have the same problem I would like to see an official explanation.

I will be sending a further letter to raise these issues as, when I wrote the first letter, I did not want to cloud the focus on the main issue of the polciy being applied retrospectively

However, feel free to do what you want with my letter and to plagiarise it as you wish if you think it could be of help.

[/quote]Point taken, Makfai, I'll have a look later (maybe others would too?) and post a suggested amended draft for comments, then possible translation afterwards?  Does that sound OK?  More personal letters are better, but it would be good to have a properly written French one, covering all our points, n'est-ce pas?

Meanwhile I am also asking some of my Dutch friends to have a look on the internet to see if they are similarly affected, or even appreciate what is going on!  See

http://www.clubarnage.com/forum/index.php?topic=7704.0 (I felt the Dutch were a good place to start as I know a number personally, and all speak such fantastic English!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say thank you to the people who have posted helpful ideas for lobbying. We are in the position of having an E106 which will run out at the beginning of January and are finding the current situation very worrying. We will be lobbying our MEP along the lines suggested.

regards

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a go at updating Makfai's letter

"Dear …

As my own representative in the European parliament, I am sure that you are aware of the recent issues regarding EU immigrants to France, and the changes taking place with the regard to their entitlement to join, or to remain in, the CMU system here.

As you know, the French government is in the process of changing the system so that persons who are not employed or self-employed, but who have not yet reached their own member state's pensionable age, will be required to seek private health insurance. Although the UK government does not apply this directive, the French policy is in-line with EU directives.

The issue which has caused serious concern is how this will be applied to non-French EU citizens who are not employed/self-employed but are ALREADY RESIDENT in France.
 
There is a lack of clarity over whether this policy will be applied retrospectively with our own British Embassy in Paris saying: 'However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.' while the French authorities have announced: 3) Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.

http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

It is particularly notable that the link above refers to “Britanniques” and not to citizens of other EU member states who reside in France.  Will they continue to be allowed to join the CMU as before, or are different rules being applied to them, and if so, why?

If, as is suggested, the ruling is applied retrospectively, then this creates a serious issue for some residents who are currently part of the CMU. It is also disturbing  to find that that same body's own website, still gives the impression that non French citizens who have had permanent homes in France for 3 months, should and can still apply to join :

http://www.cmu.fr/site/cmu.php4?Id=5

It is also unclear as to whether those whose E106 entitlements are about to expire, will also be granted a 6 month extension, or whether they will need to seek private insurance alternatives immediately.  If the British Embassy statement is correct, rather than the CMU one, how will those already living in France but covered by E106’s be affected on expiry?  They moved to France on the understanding that they would be legally required to join the CMU, and they will be similarly affected, but there is no statement as to how the changes will be applied to them, and why they may be treated differently from those already subscribing.

The suggestion is that the CMU was not meant for British residents and that they have been taking unfair advantage of a system which was not formulated with them in mind. The reality is that if the CMU system was not meant for ALL residents then it should have been designed appropriately at the time. Because of what is now being described as a “mistake” in allowing non-French European nationals to join the CMU system – and more significantly, legally requiring them to do so – many now find themselves in an unfortunate, and in some cases possibly life-threatening, situation.

Those affected fall into three main categories.

Firstly, there are those people who have abused the system by avoiding paying into it.

Equally, there are people who became resident with pre-existing health conditions but genuinely believed that the system as it applied in France (joining the CMU after the E106) was fair. Indeed, they were led to believe that this was in fact a legal requirement. Their thinking on this may well have been based on a comparison of what was on offer in UK where residence automatically means free health care.

The 'new' Brit retired residents in France saw that in France contributions were payable (8%) and a mutelle might be necessary to cover the difference. So, in essence, this meant that they believed they were making a contribution to their health care in France while there were no similar contributions required of new EU residents in UK. If anything the Brit newly residing in France may have felt that, to some extent, they had the moral high ground - at least they were contributing something. More than that - that 'something' had been set by the French Govt so the new resident could hardly be deemed unreasonable if he/she assumed the amount was acceptable to the Govt.

In fact, how many of us bother to check what international financial agreements might be underpinning the various EU agreements - including cross-border health care? The main thing is to abide by the law of the land – and this is what these people did, and have been doing ever since.

There also is a third category of people, i.e. those who became resident and later developed health conditions. They too will have believed that they were making a contribution to health care but now that they need it are being deprived of it.

Most have nothing but condemnation for the first category who are abusing the system, and indeed one of the main flaws of the new interpretation of the legislation, is that it will do nothing to prevent the cheats – who neither pay taxes, nor cotisations here and who contribute little or nothing to the French exchequer.  For the other two, huge problems are looming, in spite of the fact that they have followed the system as it was laid down, and paid what they believed to be their dues, in all good faith.

The fact that these latter two categories may have pre-existing health conditions which might prevent insurers offering them private health insurance is a serious matter. It is equally problematic if their health places the cost of insurance beyond their means. Must they now give up their residence? Would this be a 'reasonable' and 'proportionate' result of this change?

What is more, the French Govt has made the decision on this at a time when its own private health insurance industry is not yet geared up to competitively deal with these clients. This means that the effect on these residents cannot have been properly assessed by the French Govt. before the decision was taken.

Frankly, the problems with the cost of the French Health System will not be fixed by this change - its problems run deeper than that – and few can object to the French government’s introducing measures to reduce the financial burden in this manner. However, retrospective application will have a disproportionate impact on some existing residents and it appears that it has been inadequately assessed in terms of alternative provision - i.e. private insurance - because that 'industry' is not in place in France.

I believe that the decision to apply the change to existing residents may be 'ultra vires'. I see at as 'unreasonable' and having a 'disproportionate' effect.

I seek your help in ensuring that existing European citizens who became resident in France in good faith under the then existing legislation/arrangements and who are either covered by an E106 or already part of the CMU should not be affected by this change in policy. It should not be applied retrospectively.


Yours sincerely,"

Comments please.

Edited to incorporate Puzzled's comments, below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puzzled, the last link is there but not highlighted for some reason, I'll do a fix.  The first point is a good one, as the contradictory info is driving many of us bonkers; I'll see what I can do to put this in.

As this is the letter that I'm hoping some kind virtual French person will eventually translate for us to send to our (French) MEP's, I guess they get the healtcare stuff!!![Www]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok - I have my red pencil out [:D]

The bits in cerise are possibly too opinion based, while what is said it is true, it may be better to stick to facts only.  I would shorten them so those sections so for instance, you include the bit about obeying the law at the time.

The aqua highlight: Might it not be true that if there is no perceived benefit to registering etc, it may actually make the matter worse and more people will try and cheat. Just a thought !

Other bits I have altered in red type.

Have you thought about using bullet points for each aspect of the discussion ? If something is easy to 'digest' it may be more succesful in grabbing attention.

Only my 2 penneth.........I will not be offended if you decide not to take any suggestions...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Dear …

As my own representative in the European parliament, I am sure that you are aware of the recent issues regarding EU immigrants to France, and the changes taking place with the regard to their entitlement to join, or to remain in, the CMU system here.

As you know, the French government is in the process of changing the system so that persons who are not employed or self-employed, but who have not yet reached UK state pensionable age, will be required to seek private health insurance. Although the UK government does not apply this directive, the French policy is in-line with EU directives.

The issue which has caused serious concern is how this will be applied to UK citizens who are not employed/self-employed but are ALREADY RESIDENT in France.
 
There is a lack of clarity over whether this policy will be applied retrospectively with the British Embassy in Paris saying: 'However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.' while the French authorities have announced: 3) Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.

http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

It is particularly notable that the link above refers to “Britanniques” and not to citizens of other EU member states who reside in France.  Will they continue to be allowed to join the CMU as before, or are different rules being applied to them, and if so, why?

If, as is suggested, the ruling is applied retrospectively, then this creates a serious issue for some residents who are currently part of the CMU. It is also disturbing  to find that that same body's own website, still gives the impression that non French citizens who have had permanent homes in France for 3 months, should and can still apply to join :

http://www.cmu.fr/site/cmu.php4?Id=5

It is also unclear as to whether those whose E106 entitlements are about to expire, will also be granted a 6 month extension, or whether they will need to seek private insurance alternatives immediately.  If the British Embassy statement is correct, rather than the CMU statement, how will those already living in France but  at present covered by E106’s be affected on expiry?  These people moved to France on the understanding that they would be legally required to join the CMU, and they will be similarly affected, but there is no statement as to how the changes will be applied to them, and why they may be treated differently from those already subscribing.

The suggestion is that the CMU was not meant for British residents and that they have been taking unfair advantage of a system which was not formulated with them in mind. The reality is that if the CMU system was not meant for ALL residents then it should have been designed appropriately at the time. Because of what is now being described as a “mistake” in allowing non-French European nationals to join the CMU system – and more significantly, legally requiring them to do so – many now find themselves in an unfortunate, and in some cases possibly life-threatening, situation.

Those affected fall into three main categories.

*Firstly, there are those people who have abused the system by avoiding paying into it. 

*Secondly  there are people who became resident with pre-existing health conditions but genuinely believed that the system as it applied in France (joining the CMU after the E106) was fair. Indeed, they were led to believe that this was in fact a legal requirement. Their thinking on this may well have been based on a comparison of what was on offer in UK where residence automatically means free health care. (del)

The 'new' Brit retired residents in France saw that in France contributions were payable (8%) and a mutelle might be necessary to cover the difference. So, in essence, this meant that they believed they were making a contribution to their health care in France while there were no similar contributions required of new EU residents in UK. If anything the Brit newly residing in France may have felt that, to some extent, they had the moral high ground - at least they were contributing something. More than that - that 'something' had been set by the French Govt so the new resident could hardly be deemed unreasonable if he/she assumed the amount was acceptable to the Govt.

In fact, how many of us bother to check what international financial agreements might be underpinning the various EU agreements - including cross-border health care? The main thing is to abide by the law of the land – and this is what these people did, and have been doing ever since.

*Thirdly : those who became resident and later developed health conditions. They too will have believed that they were making a contribution to health care but now that they need it are being deprived of it.

Most have nothing but condemnation for the first category who are abusing the system, and indeed one of the main flaws of the new interpretation of the legislation, is that it will do nothing to prevent the cheats – who neither pay taxes, nor cotisations here and who contribute little or nothing to the French exchequer.  For the second and third categories of people, huge problems are looming, in spite of the fact that they have followed the system as it was laid down, and paid what they believed to be their dues, in all good faith.

The fact that these latter two categories may have pre-existing health conditions which might prevent insurers offering them private health insurance is a serious matter. It is equally problematic if their health places the cost of insurance beyond their means. Must they now give up their residence? Would this be a 'reasonable' and 'proportionate' result of this change?

To add to the problem, the French Govt has made the decision on this at a time when its own private health insurance industry is not yet geared up to competitively deal with these clients. This means that the effect on these residents cannot have been properly assessed by the French Govt. before the decision was taken.

Frankly, the problems with the cost of the French Health System will not be fixed by this change - its problems run deeper than that – and few can object to the French government’s introducing measures to reduce the financial burden in this manner. The retrospective application will have a disproportionate impact on some existing residents and it appears that it has been inadequately assessed in terms of alternative provision - i.e. private insurance - because that 'industry' is not in place in France.

I believe that the decision to apply the change to existing residents may be 'ultra vires'. I see at as 'unreasonable' and having a 'disproportionate' effect.

I seek your help in ensuring that existing European citizens who became resident in France in good faith under the then existing legislation/arrangements and who are either covered by an E106 or already part of the CMU should not be affected by this change in policy. It should not be applied retrospectively.


Yours sincerely,"

Comments please.

Edited to incorporate Puzzled's comments, below

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my version which I have sent to all 7 Scottish MEP,s

 

Current Situation

Following the European Directive 2004/38 the French government enacted Loi 2006-911 of 24th July 2006 to comply with this directive

 

Among other things the directive spells out that people who are inactive (I believe I fall into this category) if they wish to reside in another European country must have health assurance and not be a burden on the state

Loi 2006-911 also contains this restriction

 

I have no argument with this

 

However the French Government has recently made an announcement citing Directive 2004/38 and Loi2006-911 to justify the following decisions.

1) Anyone coming to France with an E106 will need to find private medical assurance on the expiry of their E106

2) Anyone with an E121 will continue to receive care in France

3) Anyone already in France and receiving CMU will have 6 months to find private health care

4) Anyone arriving in France without an E106 or E121 will need to find their own private health care.

 

I fall into the third category

I have been legally resident in France , have been legally contributing to the French health care system, but now I am told that I fall into the category of an inactive who wishes to enter and reside in France.

I would assume that this directive only came into force after it was enacted into French law on 24th July 2006 and did not apply to people who were already legally in France  but I stand to be corrected.

 

This is obviously going to affect many hundreds of European citizens if not thousands.

Here is the French announcement

 

Au regard du droit communautaire, la libre circulation et le droit de séjour des citoyens européens sont des principes et ceux-ci ne peuvent se voir exiger un titre de séjour. Néanmoins, une directive de 2004 fixe certains critères pour les inactifs ainsi que les étudiants et les membres de leur famille :

Au titre de la directive 2004/38, la régularité du séjour de ces personnes dans un autre Etat membre que leur Etat d’origine est conditionnée par 2 critères :
- la détention d'une assurance maladie préalable
- des ressources suffisantes afin de ne pas devenir une charge déraisonnable pour les finances de l'Etat d'accueil.

Cette nouvelle directive a été transposée en droit français notamment par la loi 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 et par le décret 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007.

Ces deux textes qui reprennent fidèlement ces deux critères conduisent à considérer qu’un ressortissant communautaire inactif venant résider dans notre pays ne peut se prévaloir d’un droit au séjour s’il n’est pas titulaire au préalable d’une couverture maladie.

Au regard de ces deux textes, voici les précisions que souhaite apporter la sécurité sociale concernant la situation des ressortissants britanniques :

1) Il n'y a pas dans la réglementation française de mesure spécifiques en matière d'assurance maladie pour les ressortissants britanniques. Ceux-ci reçoivent le même traitement, en droits et en obligations, que les autres citoyens de l'Union européenne résidant ou venant résider en France.

2) Il n'y a aucune modification pour les personnes qui peuvent présenter une attestation (E 106 ou E 121) de droit aux prestations d'assurance maladie délivrée par l'administration britannique. Ils continuent à pouvoir s'inscrire auprès de la CPAM de leur lieu de résidence pour bénéficier des prestations françaises servies pour le compte du régime britannique, aussi longtemps que ces attestations sont valables.

3) Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.

4) Pour les nouvelles demandes, c'est à dire pour les personnes inactives qui viennent résider en France et sollicitent le bénéfice de la CMU, les CPAM doivent refuser car, aux termes de la directive européenne 2004/38 sur le droit de séjour des citoyens de l'Union européenne (transposée notamment sur cet aspect par le décret n° 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007), ces personnes inactives doivent détenir une assurance maladie préalable à leur installation en France.

5) Si une personne inactive n'est pas couverte par le régime d'assurance maladie d'un autre Etat membre au moment de son installation en France, elles doivent contracter une assurance privée avant ou dès leur arrivée en France.

6) Des instructions vont être rapidement diffusées aux caisses d'assurance maladie françaises pour leur rappeler ces dispositions et leur préciser qu'elles s'appliquent à toutes les personnes concernées, seules les personnes déjà admises à la CMU bénéficiant du délai mentionné au point 3) ci-dessus.

7) Pour toute information complémentaire concernant leur situation personnelle, les concernées peuvent s'adresser aux services de la CNAMTS (service téléphonique anglophone + 33 (0)8 20 90 42 12) ou au CLEISS (+ 33 (0)1 45 26 33 41).

 

 

 

I have telephoned the help lines who have no information except stating that I am no longer entitled to Health care via CMU and will have to find private medical assurance.

 

The United Kingdom department of Pensions and Works Overseas Division also have no information on the current situation but say the British Embassy in Paris is in negotiation with the French health authorities.

 

The CMU rules as they stand at the moment, or at least if the French have not altered them without updating their website are available on the internet

 

C.M.U. et C.M.U. complémentaire

##

Attention à ne pas confondre la Couverture maladie universelle (C.M.U.) de base et la C.M.U. complémentaire. La première est une protection maladie obligatoire pour les personnes résidant en France et qui ne sont pas déjà couvertes par un autre régime obligatoire d'Assurance Maladie. La seconde est une protection complémentaire (comparable à une mutuelle) accordée sur critères de ressources.

La C.M.U. de base

Pour bénéficier de la C.M.U. de base, vous devez être en situation régulière, résider en France de manière stable depuis au moins trois mois et n'être pas déjà couvert par un autre régime obligatoire de Sécurité sociale. La C.M.U. de base n'est pas attribuée sous conditions de ressources, mais une cotisation vous sera demandée si vos revenus dépassent un certain plafond.

La C.M.U. de base vous ouvre droit aux remboursements de vos soins et médicaments aux taux habituels appliqués aux autres assurés sociaux. Comme eux, vous avancez les frais puis l'Assurance Maladie vous rembourse entre 35 % et 65 % du prix pour les médicaments, entre 60 % et 100 % pour les actes et prestations.

 

 

Full details are available here

 

http://www.ameli.fr/fiches-synthetiques/c.m.u.-et-c.m.u.-complementaire_charente.php

 

 

 

It seems that the French are applying the European directive to exclude people from CMU by saying that they are not in stable residence despite the fact that they may have resided legally in France for a number of years.

 

It may be the case that the British Government is in talks with the French authorities  but at the moment all we have to go on is a statement from the French Sociale Securite and a multitude of rumour and speculation which is causing great distress to many

 

One final point   If the French do decide that I will require private health care this will mean  that I will not be eligible for a European health card  from the French authorities or from the British authorities

 

 

 

I wonder what your thoughts are on this

 

Yours truly, xxxxx

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="sunshine"]Cooperlola - many thanks for putting together such a comprehensive letter which we can all use as an outline, with some personal variations.  I will be getting mine off to my MEP's in UK tomorrow. [/quote]Thank Makfai, really, I nicked most of it from him! 

NB If you live here, your MEP is here - you vote in France in European elections, not in the UK - even though you are registered to vote there (that's only for UK elections).  Hence my trying to get a difinitive letter correctly translated.

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

×
×
  • Create New...