Eu directive

[sy]

I have written already my application for the EC residence permit now. But...

On the other hand, according to the current tariff, the application fee for the first residence permit is 175 euros. If they treat this as the extention of residence permit, that's still 100 euros. F--king bureaucrats!

[daryl]

I have written already my application for the EC residence permit now. But...

On the other hand, according to the current tariff, the application fee for the first residence permit is 175 euros. If they treat this as the extention of residence permit, that's still 100 euros. F--king bureaucrats!

It occurs to me that there can be no fee for the established Community immigrant permit, as Finland has not yet legislated on this matter. Before a fee can be introduced under maksuperustelaki, there must be a specific administrative process (suorite) corresponding to that fee.

daryl

[sy]

I tried to submit my application for the EU long-term resident status to the Espoo Police, but as expected, they refused to accept my application. I have sent a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning their refusion to accept my application.

I then submitted today (28.3.2006) my application to the Ministry of the Interior, addressed directly to the Minister of the Interior Kari Rajamäki. Let's sit down and wait what will happen then.

[saluti]

any language requirement fo the EC residence permit?

[daryl]

any language requirement fo the EC residence permit?

Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Directive includes this rather vague formulation:

2. Member States may require third-country nationals to comply with integration conditions, in accordance with national law.

Language skills are an obvious aspect of immigrant integration in Finland, but it is by no means clear, at least for the Finnish language, that such conditions would be appropriate for a permit that merely enables freedom of movement and residence elsewhere in the European Union.

I have already previously pointed out that as the clients of this particular branch of public administration we should seek a hearing at the Interior Ministry committee that is preparing the matter. The hearing will not be refused, but there will be some regrettable accident that prevents it from actually taking place (there always is – this Ministry is violently allergic to all forms of public consultation). The next step is then to seek a hearing at the parliamentary committee that considers the legislative package.

This hearing would be the appropriate venue to gently remind the administration and the legislature that Finland remains the only Finnish-speaking country in the European Union.

daryl

[daryl]

I tried to submit my application for the EU long-term resident status to the Espoo Police, but as expected, they refused to accept my application. I have sent a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning their refusion to accept my application.

I then submitted today (28.3.2006) my application to the Ministry of the Interior, addressed directly to the Minister of the Interior Kari Rajamäki. Let's sit down and wait what will happen then.

It was a reasonable assumption that the local police would be the competent authority for an application of this kind, and there can really be no question that it was improper to turn the client away without service of any kind. I look forward to seeing the response of the Espoo police to the Ombudsman.

It is an equally reasonable assumption that the Interior Ministry, or some branch thereof, will wind up administering these applications.

Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Directive sets a time limit for processing sy's application:

2. The competent national authorities shall give the applicant written notification of the decision as soon as possible and in any event no later than six months from the date on which the application was lodged. Any such decision shall be notified to the third-country national concerned in accordance with the notification procedures under the relevant national legislation.

In exceptional circumstances linked to the complexity of the examination of the application, the time limit referred to in the first subparagraph may be extended.

In addition, the person concerned shall be informed about his/ her rights and obligations under this Directive.

Any consequences of no decision being taken by the end of the period provided for in this provision shall be determined by national legislation of the relevant Member State.

The last paragraph is interesting. While it does not require consequences, the very existence of the paragraph implies that the Member State should legislate in this area. The preamble (point 10) to the Directive says that administrative procedures should be "effective and manageable" and should not "constitute a means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence". Overstepping the time limit would obviously hinder exercise of the right.

daryl

[daryl]

The preamble to the Directive also points out that integrated Europe's traditional drag anchors, the UK and Denmark, are not taking part in this scheme. The Irish Republic is also not covered:

(25) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not participating in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by or subject to its application.

(26) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not take part in the adoption of this Directive, and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

This means that established immigrants in these countries will not enjoy the rights of the Directive and that these countries will not be required to admit holders of long-term resident status.

No great loss IMHO. Shame about Ireland, though. Probably caved in to pressure from Big Brother.

daryl

[sy]

No great loss IMHO. Shame about Ireland, though. Probably caved in to pressure from Big Brother.

I guess Ireland and UK have some kind of agreement concerning border check or airline transportation. That's the reason why Ireland doesn't participate in the Schengen treaty, either. Many flights to Dublin are via London.

[lalc]

After reading some of the threads, I have some questions. I have a permanent resident permit now, and have spent more than 5 years (3 yrs in Finland + 3 yrs in elsewhere) in EU.

1. Am I eligible for this long term resident status? If yes, where do you apply? What is the cost associated in obtaining one?
2. Sy, did u hear anything from the ministry of interior as yet? What is your background?

Thanks in advance,
lalc

[network_engineer]

Hi all,

The Directive itself states that Member states would have to recognise the Long-term Resident status after a residence period of five years. Now do the member states have to recognise that despite the resident not requesting such a status? Or is it that the status is automatic with the permit being a way to prove such a status?

Daryl: I remember you having mentioned somewhere about the fact some migrants may already be eligible for the afore-mentioned status. I'd just like to clarify: What would effectively stop the administration from insisting that it is five years post the Directive coming in to effect? I could not satisfy myself on this question after reading the Directive.

Thanks.

Cheers.