to whom it concern

As a maltese citizen you are covered by Maltese law on non-EU spouse rules NOT EU law so I guess most non maltese won't have a clue what the answer is.

yes, freedom of movement/residence only applies to EU citizens and their spouces when outside their home country

thanks so much for your help ,can you be kind enough to tell me where they are these locates cause i don't know where or how to find on google ?

Sadly no. I have a specific query about maltese law but Google only gives me links to notarys not the actual law. So sorry no idea

Ironically, if you go and live in, say, Italy, you will have the right to bring your non-EU spouse to live with you in Italy, and then at a later date (few years ? not sure) can move to Malta

o k ,thanks a lot ,your info helped me lot though ,wish you a nice long weekened

George is right. Go to live in Italy and after 5 years your spouse is entitled to a long term residency card with which he can move to Malta with you. That is my understanding anyway. Have a great weekend

For non-EU partners of Maltese citizens the adequate income of the Maltese is in excess of 10.338 € . His bank cccount does not matter. You are the guarantee.

You will also have had to have been in a stable relationship for more than 2 years ( that means proof is living together in Malta ! )

If you don't make the 2 years you will either be dependant on the discretion of the Director or you will need to know someone important ( like Joey Muscat, a minister or similar).

The usual assumption in a case like your's is that it is a marriage of convinience  so you will have to prove that it is not.

As has been said your chances are much better anywhere else in the EU .

Cheers
Ricky

They have been given this information all before  -perhaps they need to read the previous thread they openers which details the process

Good evening ,thanks again for the info ,first he is still in Pakistan ,and its not going to be a convenience marriage ,we really want to married and for that i'm going to provide him residency ,i mean we will find somewhere to stay ,i'm going to provide him with an invitation ,so that is the sum that i need to provide ,of ten thousand and a bit more euro .if i provide all this ,can i get him an invitation and can he stay in Malta as my lawfully husband

ruthmarie wrote:

Good evening ,thanks again for the info ,first he is still in Pakistan ,and its not going to be a convenience marriage ,we really want to married and for that i'm going to provide him residency ,i mean we will find somewhere to stay ,i'm going to provide him with an invitation ,so that is the sum that i need to provide ,of ten thousand and a bit more euro .if i provide all this ,can i get him an invitation and can he stay in Malta as my lawfully husband

i know what your saying but its not us you need to convince- how long have you been in a relationship with him because if you can prove a relationship of at least two years then it might be easier. ideally you need to have been married for two years for them to consider giving him residency. you can apply anyway but you will need to convinvce the director

your options are as far as i can see
marry him in pakistan and live there for two years cementing a tangible  relationship
live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship
apply anyway and try to convince them

thank you so much ,i bet its going to be very hard for us ,patience ,nothing else wish you goodnight   :so sad:

you might go and have a lawyer to get some help and implement a kind of strategy or you can ask just questions in the civil department which handles the matter. If I read what is written here, and if things can be up to director's decision also, and as you live in Malta, you could find maybe a solution, though it won't be easy. I think if you convince them it's not a convenience marriage for many reasons, it will help for sure. what is written in the law is to dissuade people to make a business in the marriage. It's not so stupid cause in France, it should be also automatic and many problems with immigrants after. I don't know your situation, but if you are resolute, you will succeed. Matter of time at least as you said...and love

A donation to the Christmas wine fund may help to convince someone lol

I don't know about when going to your own country, but when going to an EU country other than your own:


"...Burden of proof is on the national authorities to prove abuse

Married couples cannot be obliged or required, as a rule, to present evidence that their marriage is not abusive.

EU citizens and their family members enjoy the benefit of assumption, meaning that they do not need to provide evidence that their marriage is genuine. To require this would go beyond the requirement to present proof that their marriage is valid.

This reflects the principle of law that the person who lays charges has to prove the charges (‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit‘).

The burden of proof clearly rests on the national authorities who suspect that a non-EU national has entered into a marriage of convenience with an EU citizen for the sole purpose of being granted an EU right to free movement to prove that the marriage is of convenience..."

Just look up "EU Free Movement: Handbook on alleged marriages of convenience"

rmny345 wrote:

I don't know about when going to your own country, but when going to an EU country other than your own:


"...Burden of proof is on the national authorities to prove abuse

Married couples cannot be obliged or required, as a rule, to present evidence that their marriage is not abusive.

EU citizens and their family members enjoy the benefit of assumption, meaning that they do not need to provide evidence that their marriage is genuine. To require this would go beyond the requirement to present proof that their marriage is valid.

This reflects the principle of law that the person who lays charges has to prove the charges (‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit‘).

The burden of proof clearly rests on the national authorities who suspect that a non-EU national has entered into a marriage of convenience with an EU citizen for the sole purpose of being granted an EU right to free movement to prove that the marriage is of convenience..."

Just look up "EU Free Movement: Handbook on alleged marriages of convenience"

EU law doesnt apply here because they are bringing someone into their home country so they need to abide by the rules set by their home county where they need to prove a relationship of at least two years.

also that bit you copied assumes both parties are married they are not

robpw2 wrote:

rmny345 wrote:

I don't know about when going to your own country, but when going to an EU country other than your own:


"...Burden of proof is on the national authorities to prove abuse

Married couples cannot be obliged or required, as a rule, to present evidence that their marriage is not abusive.

EU citizens and their family members enjoy the benefit of assumption, meaning that they do not need to provide evidence that their marriage is genuine. To require this would go beyond the requirement to present proof that their marriage is valid.

This reflects the principle of law that the person who lays charges has to prove the charges (‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit‘).

The burden of proof clearly rests on the national authorities who suspect that a non-EU national has entered into a marriage of convenience with an EU citizen for the sole purpose of being granted an EU right to free movement to prove that the marriage is of convenience..."

Just look up "EU Free Movement: Handbook on alleged marriages of convenience"

EU law doesnt apply here because they are bringing someone into their home country so they need to abide by the rules set by their home county where they need to prove a relationship of at least two years.

also that bit you copied assumes both parties are married they are not

/
/
/

I specifically wrote ''I don't know about when going to your own country, but when going to an EU country other than your own:''   As in maybe there are other ways  such as the Surnider Singh route; do you know about the Surinder Singh Route? 

And they could always marry in Pakistan or wherever.  I don't think the details of their plans are set in stone and if they realized that getting married there first and then possibly living for a few months in an EU country other than Malta first such as in Italy then using the Surinder Singh route to come back to Malta, would be much easier, maybe they would adjust.  But if your solution works better for them, thank you for your help and I wish her and her husband the best.

"...The Surinder Singh route is a method for British citizens to secure UK immigration rights for their non-European spouses, who are unable to join their partners because of several changes in UK immigration law aimed at reducing net migration. Through EU Regulations on Free Movement of Peoples, it provides a window of opportunity to reunite UK citizens with their spouses in the increasing number of cases where the new rules on income and other additional measures mean that such spouses of UK citizens would otherwise be separated by the requirements of increasingly strict visa controls.

The Surinder Singh route involves living and working elsewhere in the European Economic Area for a period of three or more months (there is no actual time period required by EU law but instead it is based on previous case law and its application) and then asserting the rights associated with EEA citizenship and free movement to gain access to their own country while being covered by European law.[1]

In so doing, the Surinder Singh route triggers European rights of free movement that have otherwise been removed from UK citizens by UK legislation.

In principle, the Surindher Singh route applies to all EU citizens – not just UK citizens. For example, a French husband could bring his Mexican wife into France by exercising his treaty rights in Spain. It also applies to qualifying dependent family members as well as spouses.

The case law that established this precedent was the European Court of Justice ruling in the case of R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1992] 3 CMLR 358 ECJ[2][3]

See also[edit]..."   wikipedia

Please read the whole thread we have given her the advice that she has the options of marrying In Pakistan staying for 2 years and moving back to Malta
We also told her it would be easier for her to move to another eu county and cement the relationship there before returning to Malta
Or finally contacting the director and convincing him they are genuine which is probably the hardest option

robpw2 wrote:

Please read the whole thread we have given her the advice that she has the options of marrying In Pakistan staying for 2 years and moving back to Malta
We also told her it would be easier for her to move to another eu county and cement the relationship there before returning to Malta
Or finally contacting the director and convincing him they are genuine which is probably the hardest option

/
/
/
then you said //your options are as far as i can see marry him in pakistan and live there for two years cementing a tangible  relationship live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship
apply anyway and try to convince them// ..............  And just where do you get these time-frames from?  Please let me know so I don't end up giving the wrong advice to anyone.

the documentation on
https://homeaffairs.gov.mt/en/MHAS-Info … 014%29.pdf
page 2

in the case that the relationship has been subsisting  for two years, a residence permit valid for one year is granted. if documentary evidence is produced showing that the couple have been living together in such a realtionship for 5 years preceeding the application in question ,  a residence permit  for 3 years is issued to the third country national.  requests for a residence permit by a third country national whose relationship is below the two year period mentioned above are considered on the merits of the case. if the request is acceded to, a temporary permit for a period determined by the director is granted to the foreign national concerned

this is from the section detailed partners.
you will also need to provide documentary evidence that the relationship has been subsiting of at least two years - this could be a lease , bank statements, marriage/civil union certificate etc

//live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship //  Again, I'll say it once more--the Surinder Singh route!  If they live in another EU country first, this time-frame does not apply as EU law supercedes national law.  And that's what I am referring to--not directly going to Malta from Pakistan. So your statement //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship // is a bit inaccurate, is it not?  Correct me, please.  I'm always humble about learning things properly, so I can both pass the proper information on and make use of it myself.

rmny345 wrote:

//live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship //  Again, I'll say it once more--the Surinder Singh route!  If they live in another EU country first, this time-frame does not apply as EU law supercedes national law.  And that's what I am referring to--not directly going to Malta from Pakistan. So your statement //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship // is a bit inaccurate, is it not?  Correct me, please.  I'm always humble about learning things properly, so I can both pass the proper information on and make use of it myself.

IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN IN A RELATIONSHIP FOR TWO YEARS IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE DIRECTOR.... now may i suggest kindly that you contact the director of immigration and ask his feeling on the matter  as clearly you on your computer in italy know more than the rest of us !!!

O and B v The Netherlands Case C‑456/12
is the new piece of european case law that relates in part to the surinder singh case

article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a Union citizen has created or strengthened a family life with a third‑country national during genuine residence, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive apply by analogy where that Union citizen returns, with the family member in question, to his Member State of origin. Therefore, the conditions for granting a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of that Union citizen, in the latter’s Member State of origin, should not, in principle, be more strict than those provided for by that directive for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national.

which is why i and many others have suggested moving to Europe however there is no time scale set for prooving such a strengthened relationship and as Malta ask for 2 years - then that's what they would ask for , however you could having lived  in Europe for 3 months or more ask the director of immigration to consider your case on the basis that you can prove such a relationship exists.

rmny345 wrote:

//live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship //  Again, I'll say it once more--the Surinder Singh route!  If they live in another EU country first, this time-frame does not apply as EU law supercedes national law.  And that's what I am referring to--not directly going to Malta from Pakistan. So your statement //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship // is a bit inaccurate, is it not?  Correct me, please.  I'm always humble about learning things properly, so I can both pass the proper information on and make use of it myself.

May I suggest that as you are not an expat and have no knowledge of how things actually work in Malta that you do not just  'copy and paste' from other sources which are not always applicable in Malta.
You said,
   "Correct me, please.  I'm always humble about learning things properly, so I can both pass the proper information on and make use of it myself",
Might I suggest that if you are not sure, don't post!
You could of course try spending more time on the blogs of the countries you would like to move to and find out more about them, unless of course you already know it all!

Ray

robpw2 wrote:

O and B v The Netherlands Case C‑456/12
is the new piece of european case law that relates in part to the surinder singh case

article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a Union citizen has created or strengthened a family life with a third‑country national during genuine residence, pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive apply by analogy where that Union citizen returns, with the family member in question, to his Member State of origin. Therefore, the conditions for granting a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of that Union citizen, in the latter’s Member State of origin, should not, in principle, be more strict than those provided for by that directive for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national.

which is why i and many others have suggested moving to Europe however there is no time scale set for prooving such a strengthened relationship and as Malta ask for 2 years - then that's what they would ask for , however you could having lived  in Europe for 3 months or more ask the director of immigration to consider your case on the basis that you can prove such a relationship exists.

/
/
/
/
so "...Therefore, the conditions for granting a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of that Union citizen, in the latter’s Member State of origin, should not, in principle, be more strict than those provided for by that directive for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national...." means that two years is an acceptable requirement?  ...............Because looking simply at the wiki article it says  "... The Surinder Singh route involves living and working elsewhere in the European Economic Area for a period of three or more months (there is no actual time period required by EU law but instead it is based on previous case law and its application) and then asserting the rights associated with EEA citizenship and free movement to gain access to their own country while being covered by European law.[1]  ..."
I'm thinking what you are saying would be more in the case of national law superseding EU law.  I don't see what you have cited above "...should not, in principle, be more strict than those provided for by that directive for the grant of a derived right of residence to a third‑country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement by becoming established in a Member State other than the Member State of which he is a national..." means that Malta can impose a two-year requirement since that would be more strict based on case law.  But go ahead, show me proof otherwise,  I appreciate your kindness.  And perhaps you should not shout so much--it's bad for your mental health.

F0xgl0ve wrote:

rmny345 wrote:

//live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship //  Again, I'll say it once more--the Surinder Singh route!  If they live in another EU country first, this time-frame does not apply as EU law supercedes national law.  And that's what I am referring to--not directly going to Malta from Pakistan. So your statement //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship // is a bit inaccurate, is it not?  Correct me, please.  I'm always humble about learning things properly, so I can both pass the proper information on and make use of it myself.

May I suggest that as you are not an expat and have no knowledge of how things actually work in Malta that you do not just  'copy and paste' from other sources which are not always applicable in Malta.
You said,
   "Correct me, please.  I'm always humble about learning things properly, so I can both pass the proper information on and make use of it myself",
Might I suggest that if you are not sure, don't post!
You could of course try spending more time on the blogs of the countries you would like to move to and find out more about them, unless of course you already know it all!

Ray

Sure you may, but seeing as how you mentioned // no knowledge of how things actually work in Malta // which implies that Maltese law would supersede EU law in the case that they live in another EU state for whatever time period the Surinder Singh previous case law would provide, I'm not going to follow your suggestion.  Thanks anyway. //Might I suggest that if you are not sure, don't post!//  I'm pretty sure that Surinder Singh would be an option and I don't particularly see evidence that two years would still be a requirement.  But, as I have said, I'm sure delighted to learn new things, so when you have an EU authority stating that Malta could impose such a two-year requirement, sure, I'll be interested.  As far as other blogs in other places, sure, I could, but I'm enjoying this one for the time being; who knows, perhaps if wonderful folk like you are what I'll encounter in Malta, it may be a better idea than Holland or Germany.

Look rmny345 case law is not binding on member states and therefore whilst member states will follow the directives they are not obliged to follow case law on other member state disputes .
Directives give member states requirement to follow how they follow those requirements is up to them

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directiv … n_Union%29

So Malta is perfectly with in its rights to ask for a minimum requirement to how long someone from outside the eu has to have been in a relationship before offering residencey

Case law is merely the interpretation of the directives and the way the member state has enacted in the carrying out those directives
In future cases they will sometimes refer to previous case law for creating a judgement or as in the other case mentioned above make their own interpretations of the directives.
Descisions in the court are only binding on the eu county or individual it addressed
Thus Malta has to follow the directives - it does - it does not need to follow any case law


A casing point where eu court says some thing should happen and Malta does its own thing is hunting
And in terms of the UK - prisoners and the vote

I would just make a conjecture here that when it involves freedom of movement principles going from one state to another, EC law would be a bit more binding than if it were strictly a matter that didn't transcend national borders. But anyway, based on a general wiki article about common law "... In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes,..."  that right there, used in a case brought to the EC, I'd say that the EC would rule in her favor were she established as per the guidelines of the Surinder Singh route for a good six months and the Maltese authorities tried to demand a whole two years.  No, I don't have proof that is what would happen, but how did the decision that three months would be sufficient in the case of Brits returning to the UK with their foreign spouse, come about?  Did the UK decide that that's how they would implement the decision handed down by the EU authorities?  I'm sure sensibility would be taken into consideration and it would be hard for Malta do dictate a two-year term for a married couple.  Maybe someone could ask an EU authority such as 'your Europe advice', if anyone wants certainty, because I haven't seen that in anything you have cited so far.

the descision handed down by the courts in the surinder singh case ONLY affects the UK as that is the memberstate to which it was directed. It does not bind any other member state to follow suit the member states have to follow the DIRECTIVES these and only these are binding ..... for exmaple if
EU Directive 101 stated that all forum posts must contain the word monkey after every sentence ....
every member state would have to adopt that into law ....
the UK might decide that monkey could be in brackets
malta might choose that monkey should be in capitals etc ...

they are both following the directive ...
france however decide that an emoticon of a monkey would meet the directive .. and so someone takes france to the european court for not following the directive .
The eu court says that the word monkey should be in capitals and italicized- and direct france to follow this ...

France now need to make sure that they follow the judgement of the case however as malta and the uk have not been directed to do anything they are within their rights to continue as how they were doing it .

If someone took Malta to court  for not following the directive after the original judgment they could refer to the original judgement but as case law is not binding on anyone but to whom its directed they could come up with another judgement .

my point being is unlike common law systems of countries for example the uk where the rulings of higher courts are binding on lower courts the judgement of the surinder singh case is only binding on the UK  - however it may give rise to cases from other individuals ..

Also the op is not married she intends to marry someone ....
may i suggest you read the surinder singh case as you seem to like to quote it but clearly have no idea of how or why its relevant
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ … 1990CJ0370

robpw2 wrote:

Also the op is not married she intends to marry someone ....
may i suggest you read the surinder singh case as you seem to like to quote it but clearly have no idea of how or why its relevant

/
/
/
yes, she intends to marry someone; quite the detective you are!  So, therefore I am suggesting at getting that part done first, get it?
May I suggest you also read the Surinder Singh case as you seem to like to refute it but fail at doing so with your assumption //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship
apply anyway and try to convince them// as in they still have to prove the genuineness of their relationship.  Apparently you missed the part about the burden of proof regarding marriage validity being on the authorities when exercising Freedom of Movement rights.

rmny345 wrote:

robpw2 wrote:

Also the op is not married she intends to marry someone ....
may i suggest you read the surinder singh case as you seem to like to quote it but clearly have no idea of how or why its relevant

/
/
/
yes, she intends to marry someone; quite the detective you are!  So, therefore I am suggesting at getting that part done first, get it?
May I suggest you also read the Surinder Singh case as you seem to like to refute it but fail at doing so with your assumption //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship
apply anyway and try to convince them// as in they still have to prove the genuineness of their relationship.  Apparently you missed the part about the burden of proof regarding marriage validity being on the authorities when exercising Freedom of Movement rights.

there is no marriage- also your precious surinder singh case was about a man requesting leave to remain after a divorce .. nothing to do with asking them to prove there relationship
ALSO IT IS NOT BINDING ON MALTA AND CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO THE UK >>>>as you have been told many many many many many times

robpw2 wrote:

rmny345 wrote:

robpw2 wrote:

Also the op is not married she intends to marry someone ....
may i suggest you read the surinder singh case as you seem to like to quote it but clearly have no idea of how or why its relevant

/
/
/
yes, she intends to marry someone; quite the detective you are!  So, therefore I am suggesting at getting that part done first, get it?
May I suggest you also read the Surinder Singh case as you seem to like to refute it but fail at doing so with your assumption //live with him in another eu country for a number of years cementing a tangible relationship
apply anyway and try to convince them// as in they still have to prove the genuineness of their relationship.  Apparently you missed the part about the burden of proof regarding marriage validity being on the authorities when exercising Freedom of Movement rights.

there is no marriage- also your precious surinder singh case was about a man requesting leave to remain after a divorce .. nothing to do with asking them to prove there relationship
ALSO IT IS NOT BINDING ON MALTA AND CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO THE UK >>>>as you have been told many many many many many times

There is no marriage?  Does that mean they can never get married in the future?  Isn't that what weddings are for?  Now you are desperate to win an argument.  And the Surinder Singh clause establishes EU Freedom of Movement rights when coming back to one's home country after having exercised treaty rights in another member state; do you not understand that?  What do you mean it is not binding on Malta--that it 'CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO THE UK''?  Instead of shouting, and throwing a temper-tantrum and breaking things in your living-room, why not read how wrong you are about that on wikipedia's Surinder Singh article: "...   In principle, the Surindher Singh route applies to all EU citizens – not just UK citizens. For example, a French husband could bring his Mexican wife into France by exercising his treaty rights in Spain. It also applies to qualifying dependent family members as well as spouses.  ..."

Let me know when you've read it ;-)

One Wikipedia is not a legal source and should not be relied on for any legal information ... I could edit that page now to say that it oy applies to blue Martians doesn't make it factual !
Secondly in principle does not mean it's factual either what it means is you could possibly use it .

What is guaranteed about the surinder Singh case is it only applies to those trying to enter the UK as that is the party that was directed in the court case ,  what is also gautenteed is when Netherlands bought a case - the surinder Singh case was not used In order to determine a decision these can both be found from legal sources .

I haven't said that you can't use it but I have said its not legally binding on Malta . If Malta refuse entry because they cannot prove a relationship then they would have to go to the eu court for their own
Judgement .

If your unsure what In principle means - in principle I might agree with a new rubbish dump in my town ... However if I found out they intended to use my backyard i would t be in favor ...thus the idea seems good but the practical application isn't gautenteed

robpw2 wrote:

One Wikipedia is not a legal source and should not be relied on for any legal information ... I could edit that page now to say that it oy applies to blue Martians doesn't make it factual !
Secondly in principle does not mean it's factual either what it means is you could possibly use it .

What is guaranteed about the surinder Singh case is it only applies to those trying to enter the UK as that is the party that was directed in the court case ,  what is also gautenteed is when Netherlands bought a case - the surinder Singh case was not used In order to determine a decision these can both be found from legal sources .

I haven't said that you can't use it but I have said its not legally binding on Malta . If Malta refuse entry because they cannot prove a relationship then they would have to go to the eu court for their own
Judgement .

"...You are also entitled to benefit from the rights granted under the Directive if you return
home after having resided in another EU country....."

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/ci … nt_low.pdf


So, is site unreliable as well?  Or do you wish to change your argument again?  ;-)

I think, by now, if he was still here, 'Redmik' would be jumping up and down shouting 'TROLL', 'TROLL'

It might be a good time for Admin. to get involved with 'rmny345'

Ray

F0xgl0ve wrote:

I think, by now, if he was still here, 'Redmik' would be jumping up and down shouting 'TROLL', 'TROLL'

It might be a good time for Admin. to get involved with 'rmny345'

Ray

Why, because he is giving false information and I am calling him out on it?  I simply made a suggestion to the OP and his ego lead him to challenge me and he is asserting false facts such as how the Surinder Singh clause doesn't apply to anyone but the UK.  Why should anyone accept that?