Hungarian citizenship - registered partnership

felipessan wrote:

Hello!

I'm a Brazilian medical student and I'll finish my studies this year. I lived in Hungary through an intership program and I studied one year at the University of Szeged (faculty of medicine). On that period I met my hungarian partner and we've been together for almost 5 years. I'm planning to move to hungary to work there as a doctor and to have a registered partnership (we are a gay couple). So I would like to know if after a certain period I could apply for a Hungarian citizenship or if it is allowed just for straight couples. Thanks in advance for the informations!

I believe that civil partnerships are fine in Hungary but it's not clear if the Hungarians would treat you legitimately and properly "on the ground" in the civil administration.   

If you are treated properly - equally and fairly - then presumably the same would apply as straight couples and the process would be the same. 

Why don't you get your HU partner to ask at the Immigration Office?  But in general, yes, you have to wait some years to receive citizenship plus good behaviour, blah-blah, etc.

You may find this recent article very relevant to your position - ECJ ruling on gay couples.. 

Note you do not have to be married within the laws of the target country (i.e. the recognition of same sex marriage is irrelevant in this ruling, you can get married in the EU where it is legal).  BTW, same sex marriage is not legal here too (it's not in the list in the article) but probably because civil partnerships are recognised.

Good luck!

fluffy2560 wrote:

If you are treated properly - equally and fairly - then presumably the same would apply as straight couples and the process would be the same.

Unfortunately, the government has taken offline their information regarding Hungarian Citzenship applications:

http://www.bmbah.hu/index.php?option=co … mp;lang=en

Probably because they change the rules all the time. This year, needing to renew my residency permit, I downloaded a form from the government web site, filled it out. But when I went to the office I was told that was an "old form" and gave me a new form to fill out. Can anyone here spell "digital incompetence"? Because I don't think the government bureaucracy can.

So, yes, it is rather pointless asking at forums what to do. One needs to contact the local immigration office now. Nothing else really may be of much help.

Aside from that -- being treated fairly -- as I remember (before the government took down the last set of instructions) being married gave someone the option to apply after fewer years of residency than not being married. So was not "equal and fair" to single people. So... "fair" is relative. And governments can, and often do, create their own regulations (which may benefit one type of person over others). Is that fair? Nope.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You may find this recent article very relevant to your position - ECJ ruling on gay couples..

I doubt it is relevant. Free movement and residency, and a country's right to decide the rules who and when people are to be allowed to be citizens are not the same thing. And the ruling left a large legal loophole regarding "marriage" and "spouse" that any national government can exploit -- and clarifying that via the EU courts will take many more years.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

You may find this recent article very relevant to your position - ECJ ruling on gay couples..

I doubt it is relevant. Free movement and residency, and a country's right to decide the rules who and when people are to be allowed to be citizens are not the same thing. And the ruling left a large legal loophole regarding "marriage" and "spouse" that any national government can exploit -- and clarifying that via the EU courts will take many more years.

Not really, it's now clear and moreover it's very relevant.   

Applicants cannot be fobbed off by saying their marriage is illegal in any particular EU country.   I agree that it doesn't say same sex marriage is  now legal but it does mean that a spouse's rights cannot be undermined, even if the spouse is the same gender as the EU citizen. The article says the definition of spouse in law was not defined and moreover having such restrictions were against the free movement principle.   

The OP is Brazilian with a HU partner.  They can get married in Brussels or London and then come to Hungary and require issuance of a residence permit. Citizenship can come later but they will be together here legally and permanently.  Job Part 1 done.  Do the time here, Job Part 2 done.  In any case, I think it's like 8 years to citizenship so who knows what the political landscape will be then.

In any case, the ECJ has handed down a judgement and now the EU member states have to implement it immediately.  I don't see how anyone in government can ignore it.  Sure they can be awkward and mess people around, but they cannot challenge it as they'd lose in 2 seconds.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Not really, it's now clear and moreover it's very relevant.   

Applicants cannot be fobbed off by saying their marriage is illegal in any particular EU country.   I agree that it doesn't say same sex marriage is  now legal but it does mean that a spouse's rights cannot be undermined, even if the spouse is the same gender as the EU citizen. The article says the definition of spouse in law was not defined and moreover having such restrictions were against the free movement principle.

Correct. And I agree. To a point.

But.... The ruling is not really encompassing. It is limited to case at hand, which is the free movement of people and the right to reside in any EU country. One can not necessarily extrapolate such rulings automatically beyond residency. And especially assuming the local government implements the ruling and does not thumb their nose at it directly or indirectly (i.e. residency application slow downs, loosing paperwork, etc.).

in other words, such a ruling does not necessarily mean the same as equal access to citizenship. This post question was about citizenship, not residency. Which is why I suggest a ruling on residency is not really relevant if we stick to the topic. And I assume the OP could get residency even without this ruling... given how many doctors, willing to get underpaid for their skills, are needed in Hungary.

You and I are neither lawyers. But if I were a lawyer, this ruling has those the subtle distinctions I would chew on regarding "interpretation" (recent example of "interpretation" -- how to count "abstain" votes during the recent EU vote against Hungary (Hungary still rejects the ruling)). Especially government lawyers who would say let's test that in court, and pass a law, which takes years in the courts to work out (for example -- in dark hours, lawyers thought of ways how to call torcher legal). For example, people with national recognized marriages only can get fast tracked for citizenship -- while just "spouses" without recognized marriages, as defined by the country, can be treated like single persons. So, easy to create such a law as that tries to exploit the potential loophole the ruling left open. in effect, the ruling is indeed not relevant if any country wants to re-interpret it in their own way, or challenge it at any level beyond a narrow interpretation and willing to have it challenged in court. Ergo, this ruling re-states the EU has rights regarding enforcing freedom of movement, but really says nothing on what a country (and their national sovereignty) declares as rules for citizenship. Thus regarding citizenship, I don't see it having any relevance (now). That was my point.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Citizenship can come later but they will be together here legally and permanently.  Job Part 1 done.

Permanently: actually.... not correct.

It takes 5 years to get permanent residency for non-EU citizens. Right to reside is not the same as permanent residency. And permanent residency versus just residency have different rights and obligations applied to that person.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/r … dex_en.htm

fluffy2560 wrote:

In any case, I think it's like 8 years to citizenship so who knows what the political landscape will be then.

Eight years I believe was for single people. The last time I saw the rules, I remember it was less than that for married people. As little as 3 years (but that may be a false memory). I do not know the current law. But it can vary.

klsallee wrote:

.....

But.... The ruling is not really encompassing. It is limited to case at hand, which is the free movement of people and the right to reside in any EU country. One can not necessarily extrapolate such rulings automatically beyond residency. And especially assuming the local government implements the ruling and does not thumb their nose at it directly or indirectly (i.e. residency application slow downs, loosing paperwork, etc.). .....This post question was about citizenship, not residency. Which is why I suggest a ruling on residency is not really relevant if we stick to the topic. And I assume the OP could get residency even without this ruling... given how many doctors, willing to get underpaid for their skills, are needed in Hungary. ....Especially government lawyers who would say let's test that in court, and pass a law, which takes years in the courts to work out.....For example, people with national recognized marriages only can get fast tracked for citizenship -- while just "spouses" without recognized marriages, as defined by the country, can be treated like single persons. So, easy to create such a law as that tries to exploit the potential loophole the ruling left open. in effect, the ruling is indeed not relevant if any country wants to re-interpret it in their own way, or challenge it at any level beyond a narrow interpretation and willing to have it challenged in court. Ergo, this ruling re-states the EU has rights regarding enforcing freedom of movement .....

etc....

Yes, but that's all rather nit picking, so let's not troll....and let's be practical even though it's a slow day down by the lake.

The crux of the OP's posting was about the path to citizenship however that was phrased, which normally would include a period of residency to show commitment, however long that was. 

As for permanency, the EU isn't going to rescind that ruling anytime soon so that makes it effectively permanent, i.e. what grounds for refusal? And everyone will get used to it.   And it is not limited to the case in hand. It applies to others too.

It's quite a wide ranging ruling.  Looks to me like they can at least get together in HU no problem and that's all cool for them.   

If OV and crew want to tie them up in paperwork and red tape, I hope they have the cojones to sue the government to enforce their rights.  They have precedent and may even be able to say, take it to an ombudsman to get their needs met. 

But in general, whatever happens, they will be alright in the end.

Might be that the ruling even brings in same sex marriage once Lajos Bacsi down on the farm in the countryside realises the sky isn't going to fall in over it.

One could see the legislation as it stands breaking at some point in the future through an ECHR case - right to a family, privacy and blah-blah.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Yes, but that's all rather nit picking.

I was simply pointing out (verbosely) that the law is really about nit picking. That is why there is all those "party of the first party" legalese.

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's quite a wide ranging ruling.

My point was, that is just your opinion. You take a wide interpretation. Others may take a narrower interpretation. But again, neither one of are lawyers, so what we think may not be relevant.

I was in a court battle once that was based on EU law. The law was perfectly clear. To us, we had an air tight case in our favor. Our attorneys quoted all the relevant laws, even Hungarian laws enacted to supposedly "match" EU law. The court rejected them all. And the other attorney came up with laws that had nothing to do with our case at all, which the court accepted. And the complaint against us was based on non-facts (claiming, for example, we did not make a payment, yet we had all the receipts). What I am saying is, the courts are not necessarily going to "interpert" EU laws or EU rulings as you may think they should.

Oh, yes, and the judge made disparaging "angry" comments about us in the written decision. Very "non-judicial" (maybe this judge should run for SCOTUS).

fluffy2560 wrote:

If OV and crew want to tie them up in paperwork and red tape, I hope they have the cojones to sue the government to enforce their rights.  They have precedent and may even be able to say, take it to an ombudsman to get their needs met.

True. And I agree. But that is not exactly what I said, is it? For example, I pointed out, as an example, one can come to Hungary alone, get a job, live here long enough, and eventually apply for citizenship. That is, no "marriage/partnership" issue need apply at all. It is just that "family reunification" is "easier" to get residency for some. But a doctor, I would suspect, would also find rather easy (but I may be wrong). Thus, marriage, partnership, etc.... and thus this ruling.... need not be relevant in this case.

And suing at EU level only works if the government decides to honor the ruling without bias (i.e. does not employ the "what goes around comes around" reaction, watching you until you miss crossing a T or dotting a I, then use that an excuse to cause you more problems). That is if the rule of law is always respected -- i.e. a liberal democracy. And today.... well we may have something else, where the government may call a ruling against it simply part of the "Soros Plan"......

Side note: IMHO the Ombudsman's office has been castrated -- rather a waste of time now as an appeal process.

klsallee wrote:

...

My point was, that is just your opinion. You take a wide interpretation. Others may take a narrower interpretation. But again, neither one of are lawyers, so what we think may not be relevant.

I was in a court battle once that was based on EU law. The law was perfectly clear. To us, we had an air tight case in our favor. ......For example, I pointed out, as an example, one can come to Hungary alone, get a job, live here long enough, and eventually apply for citizenship. That is, no "marriage/partnership" issue need apply at all. It is just that "family reunification" is "easier" to get residency for some. But a doctor, I would suspect, would also find rather easy (but I may be wrong). Thus, marriage, partnership, etc.... and thus this ruling.... need not be relevant in this case.

And suing at EU level only works if the government decides to honor the ruling without bias (i.e. does not employ the "what goes around comes around" reaction, watching you until you miss crossing a T or dotting a I, then use that an excuse to cause you more problems). That is if the rule of law is always respected -- i.e. a liberal democracy. And today.... well we may have something else, where the government may call a ruling against it simply part of the "Soros Plan"......

Side note: IMHO the Ombudsman's office has been castrated -- rather a waste of time now as an appeal process.

I still think it's nit picking.   OK, I am not a lawyer but I can read newspaper articles and knowledgeable commentary therein. 

Not withstanding the OP's medical skills desirability, the chances are that a vanilla directly out of a favela Brazilian national would be rejected for immigration to here in a standalone application.   

On the other hand a street sweeper out of the slums of Naples and therefore a national of an EU state exercising their freedom rights moving here is entitled to bring their non-EU partner with them when they come here - regardless if that's a man or a woman.   That's what the ruling says.

So it seems to me, regardless of random looney judges, on balance, all things being equal, minus the amount of money in your pocket, the phases of the moon and sunspot activity and unfortunately maybe a dose of luck, there's more chance now for the  OP and partner to get together here in Hungary due to that ruling than not.

I don't know about the Ombudsman here but I wouldn't be suprised it's lacking any oomph.  But it's not the only self-service option.  There's that "SolvIt (Solve It)" service of the EU which might have some clout if it's about free movement.  Might be worth knowing that just in case - always have a Plan B or C, even D or E.

I note that for freedom of movement, the OP's HU partner would have to go to another country for a while to exercise their rights to bring in the non-EU partner. Personally I'd tell people not to come here at the moment due to OV's nastiness but to go somewhere more welcoming like The Netherlands or for better weather maybe Spain.  Perhaps even get in under the Brexit wire with the UK or Ireland via the HU partner's working rights there.  Then come back here to make it an EU movement rights type application.  Once here, if the OP is working, they are on the path to citizenship.

It is confusing, sometimes I do think the old system of just bringing any official a few "treats" would move the process along allot faster.
Old friend would visit Romania in the commie days and have ready all her supplies for the boarder guards, police or anyone official she had to deal with.
Coffee, nice candy, a carton of cig's here and there and everything went smooth like butter.
Now it seems they look at what countries are involved and decide that some countries can afford more then others, Such as UK, US, Canada etc. may pay more for the same service as someone from a less fluent country .
Of course I will not write that in blood, but seems the case many times.
If your from a "richer" country then it stands to reason you are rich too... Left handed logic but that's the norm.

3 years is correct it seems, but my question is does it matter if the union happens in an EU country with an EU citizen?

Let say the union happens in South Africa where civil unions are legal since 2006 and the South African wants to apply for Hungarian residence and later citizenship?

Are they compelled to spend all their time in the EU country?

Thanks.