Non EU spouse of a British national entering Gibraltar.

Post reply   Start new thread
:: New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: 1 |

Forum home :: Latest threads :: Search forums
The Comments
09 Jan 2014 4:27 PM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

Just for info for those affected:

I went to Gibraltar today with my Asian wife.

She has Residencia in Spain (not the green paper but a Residencia Card). According to the immigration laws requires a visa to enter Gib or UK.  

However,  there is a case (Suringer Singh) which establishes that a British national can take their spouse to either country if they (the spouse) have worked in the EU outside UK. I have worked in Spain for 16 years,  albeit without pay,  as a volunteer.

From the demeanour of the immigration officer today, he did not seem aware of the work requirement, when he let my wife enter.

 

 

The same rule should apply to the UK





Like 1      
09 Jan 2014 7:20 PM by andyintorre Star rating in Costa Blanca. 104 posts Send private message

Interesting, yes your wife would have the right to accompany you on your return to the UK to take up residence and also to accompany you on a visit to the UK. However, before you travel your wife must apply for an entry clearance cetificate, sometimes called a visa to accompany you as a family member. This "Visa" is issued free of charge, but the official that allowed your wife entry to Gibralter was I would suggest, having a good day and didn't want the hassle of turning you away





Like 1      
10 Jan 2014 8:27 AM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

Hi Andy,

                       Under the ‘ Surinder Singh Route’ a spouse of an EU National, who has Residencia Status in the EU, can travel to UK without any paperwork.

 The ‘problem’ I had was that I am British, thus I also needed to be able to prove that I am a worker in an EU country outside the UK.   Previously,  working as a volunteer was a problem i.e. did it amount to ‘working’ under the ‘rule.’

 

I have used my Irish Passport ( I have dual nationality) on a few occasions ,  but have not shown out that I also had British nationality, as that would have overridden the Irish nationality and my wife would have been refused entry.

Yesterday I took with me an email which, I had from the Chief Immigration Officer in Gib, confirming that my wife could travel with me.  





Like 1      
10 Jan 2014 9:01 AM by andyintorre Star rating in Costa Blanca. 104 posts Send private message

So if you used your British passport and could prove you work or are self employed in Spain your wife can travel with you to Gib or UK with no entry clearance visa as a family member?
Would that also include children?



Like 0      
10 Jan 2014 9:06 AM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

So if you used your British passport and could prove you work or are self employed in Spain your wife can travel with you to Gib or UK with no entry clearance visa as a family member?

That is what we did, it is what the Surinder Singh case found.  

I have not looked at the finding with regard to children





Like 0      
10 Jan 2014 9:11 AM by andyintorre Star rating in Costa Blanca. 104 posts Send private message

I understood the precedence set by this case would only apply if you as a British citizen were returning to the UK to take up residence, not just for a day trip.



Like 1      
10 Jan 2014 9:36 AM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

Hi Andy,

This my email and the reply.

 

Sent: 29 September 2013 09:42
To: Austin Viagas
Subject: entry to Gibraltar

I am a British national living in Spain with my non EU wife.  She has permanent Resident Status.

I understand that if I have worked in Europe (outside UK )  my wife can accompany me to visit Gibraltar without requiring a visa (Surinder Singh ? )

I have been a voluntary worker with the National Police, for 15 years and for a while with the Guardia Civil, although of course without payment.
 

I have a an official ID issued by the National Police showing that I am a 'Colablrador-Interprete'
 

Does that permit me to take my wife with me to visit Gibraltar ?

 

REPLY:_  

Dear Sir

Thank you for your enquiry. Your wife may enter Gibraltar if accompanied by yourself with her Spanish residency card which should state that she is a family member of an EU National.

Kind Regards


Austin Viagas
Executive Officer
Immigration Department
Royal Gibraltar Police
Duke of Kent House
Secretary's Lane
Gibraltar

Tel: +350 20061564
Fax: +350 20074198


 





Like 0      
10 Jan 2014 9:44 AM by andyintorre Star rating in Costa Blanca. 104 posts Send private message

Thanks for this.
I have a contact in the FCO in London and will ask the question.
We have the same situation as you regarding my wife's residence, which is also permanent.
I will let you know the outcome.
In the mean time thanks for the information.



Like 0      
10 Jan 2014 2:02 PM by andyintorre Star rating in Costa Blanca. 104 posts Send private message

This is the advice received, it looks like you have been lucky and the office in Gibralter have used some common sense, the way I interpret the rules is that a family permit is required for entry to UK, and by definition Gibralter.
What do you think? 
 
 
EUN2.14 Can Family member of British Citizens Qualify for an EEA Family Permit?
(SURINDER SINGH CASE)
 
As a general rule, family member of British Citizens do not qualify for an EEA family permit. Article 3 of the Directive essentially says that an EEA national cannot be considered as exercising freedom of movement in their own state.
 
This Directive shall apply to all Union Citizens who move to our reside in a Member State other than that of which they are national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 who accompany or join them.
 
However, where an EEA national has exercised a treaty right in another Member State as a worker or  self-employed and they wish to return to their own State having exercised that right, certain provisions may apply in order for their non-EEA family members to qualify under the EEA Regulations.
 
A British national and his/her non-EEA national family members can only benefit from free movement rights if they meet the criteria established in the ECJ (Eoropean Court of Justice) case of Surinder Singh. The case stated that nationals of a Member State will, on return to their home state, be entitled to bring their non-EEA family members to join them under EC law.
 
Example: A British national is exercising economic Treaty right in Germany and living with his            non-EEA national spouse and children. On the British national's return to the UK, his non-EEA national family members can apply for EEA family permit to join under EC law.
 
The Surinder Singh judgement is incorporated into theEEA Regulations in Regulation 9.
 
Family members of British national who meet the requirements of Regulation 9 are treated as family member of EEA nationals for the purpose of the EEA Regulations.
 
Application for EEA family permits must meet the following criteria:
 
The British Citizen must be residing in an EEA member state as a worker or self-employed person or have been doing so before returning to the UK.
 
If the family member of the British Citizen is their spouse or civil partner, they are living together in the       EEA country or must have entered into the marriage or civil partnership and have been living together in the relevant EEA country before the British citizen returned to the UK.
 
Because EEA nationals have an initial three month right of residence in the UK, there is no  requirement for the British national to be qualified person on arrival.
Therefore, an EEA family permit can be issued to the non-EEA national family member of a British national even if they are only visiting the UK with the British national before returning to the Member State where they are resident.
 
It does not matter if the only reason the British national went to another Member State was to exercise an Economic Treaty Right was so that he/she could come back to the UK with his/her family members under EC law.
 
The Entry Clearance Officer(ECO) should seek advice from ECCAT where unsure about the decision to be taken in applying the Surinder Singh judgement.
 




Like 0      
10 Jan 2014 2:22 PM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

Andy,

This from :- 

http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/showthread.php/45697-Can-the-spouse-an-EEA-cititzen-visit-UK-without-a-visa

Originally Posted by johncar54 

I am UK national but since Oct 2010 I have also held an Irish Passport.
I see that as an Irish National (EEA citizen) it appears I can take my Filipino wife to UK without a visa.
She has had permanent Residencia status in Spain since 2006.

We want to be able to make family visits and travel (transit) between, say LGW and LHR without having to go to all the problem associated with obtaining a visa.

Thanks in anticipation.

John

 

 

Reply:-  

John,

To some extent the best answer depends on how you view the UK's position to EU Regulations.
Damian Green has expressed his concern about the validity of certain Residence cards .

When travelling together it is not compulsory for non-EEA family members of EEA nationals to obtain either Visa or EEA family permit before travelling to the UK, and UK Border Agency officers will consider any evidence presented by passengers arriving at the UK border that they are entitled to be admitted as a family member of an EEA national in accordance with Regulation 11.


Here is the regulation.

Right of admission to the United Kingdom

11.—(1) An EEA national must be admitted to the United Kingdom if he produces on arrival a valid national identity card or passport issued by an EEA State.

(2) A person who is not an EEA national must be admitted to the United Kingdom if he is a family member of an EEA national, a family member who has retained the right of residence or a person with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15 and produces on arrival—

(a)a valid passport; and 
(b)an EEA family permit, a residence card or a permanent residence card.

(3) An immigration officer may not place a stamp in the passport of a person admitted to the United Kingdom under this regulation who is not an EEA national if the person produces a residence card or permanent residence card.

(4) Before an immigration officer refuses admission to the United Kingdom to a person under this regulation because the person does not produce on arrival a document mentioned in paragraph (1) or (2), the immigration officer must give the person every reasonable opportunity to obtain the document or have it brought to him within a reasonable period of time or to prove by other means that he is—

(a)an EEA national; 
(b)a family member of an EEA national with a right to accompany that national or join him in the United Kingdom; or
(c)a family member who has retained the right of residence or a person with a permanent right of residence under regulation 15.

Quite honestly, I can see no reason in your case as a visitor to go through the process of securing a Family Permit.
I would however advise that you and your wife take all relevant documentation to prove entitlement in accordance regulation 11
(eg Marriage certificate, passports, residence cards, any other)

Hope this helps.
In principle it makes no difference which EEA National passport you present
.

 


This message was last edited by johnzx on 10/01/2014.



Like 1      
10 Jan 2014 3:51 PM by andyintorre Star rating in Costa Blanca. 104 posts Send private message

Below the details, at every point the ruling refers to a British citizen returning to the UK to take up residence. I can find no reference to visiting.

The official from Gib does say he can only pass comment on rules for Gib, I don't think I would like to try the UK border without the family permit, pretty sure they would refuse entry.

 

Judgment of the Court of 7 July 1992. - The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal et Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for Home Department. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. - Freedom of movement for persons - Right of residence of the spouse of a national of a Member State who returns to establish himself in his country of origin. - Case C-370/90.

European Court reports 1992 Page I-04265
Swedish special edition Page I-00019
Finnish special edition Page I-00019


 

 

Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

 

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Right of entry and residence for nationals of Member States ° Return to a Member State of one of its nationals who has exercised his right of free movement ° Right of residence of that person' s spouse

(EEC Treaty, Art. 52; Council Directive 73/148)

Summary

 

The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and preclude measures which might place Community citizens at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State. For that purpose, nationals of Member States have in particular the right, which they derive directly from Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, to enter and reside in the territory of other Member States in order to pursue an economic activity there as envisaged by those provisions.

A national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or self-employed person, his conditions were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under Community law in the territory of another Member State. He would in particular be deterred from so doing if his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of that State under conditions at least equivalent to those granted by Community law in the territory of another Member State.

The fact that a national of a Member State enters and resides in the territory of that State by virtue of the rights attendant upon his nationality, without its being necessary for him to rely on his rights under Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, does not preclude him from relying on the latter rights when he takes up residence again in that Member State.

Consequently, Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services must be construed as requiring a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of the State of which he or she is a national. The spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered or resided in the territory of another Member State.

Parties

 

In Case C-370/90,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice (Queen' s Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

The Queen

and

Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh

Ex parte: Secretary of State for the Home Department,

on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EEC Treaty and of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14),

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, M. Díez de Velasco, M. Zuleeg, J.L. Murray and D.A.O. Edward, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Tesauro,

Registrar: H.A. Ruehl, Principal Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

° the United Kingdom by Rosemary Caudwell, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, assisted by David Pannick, Barrister,

° Surinder Singh by Richard Plender, QC, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Nicholas Blake, Barrister, instructed by T. I. Clough and Co., Solicitors,

° the Commission of the European Communities by António Caeiro, Legal Adviser, and Nicholas Khan, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the United Kingdom, represented by John F. Collins, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, assisted by Stephen Richards, Barrister, Surinder Singh and the Commission of the European Communities at the hearing on 24 March 1992,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 May 1992,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

 

1 By order of 19 October 1990, which was received at the Court on 17 December 1990, the High Court of Justice (Queen' s Bench Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 52 of the Treaty and Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14).

2 That question was raised in the course of proceedings between Surinder Singh, an Indian national, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who decided to deport Mr Singh from the United Kingdom on 15 December 1988.

3 It appears from the order of the national court that Surinder Singh married Rashpal Purewal, a British national, on 29 October 1982 in Bradford (United Kingdom). From 1983 until 1985 Mr and Mrs Singh were employed in the Federal Republic of Germany. At the end of 1985 they returned to the United Kingdom in order to open a business.

4 In 1986 Mr Singh was granted limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the husband of a British national. In July 1987 a decree nisi of divorce was pronounced against him in proceedings brought by his wife. Because of that decree the British authorities cut short his leave to remain and refused to grant him indefinite leave to remain as the spouse of a British citizen.

5 Mr Singh resided lawfully in the United Kingdom until 23 May 1988, on which date he withdrew the administrative appeal which he had lodged against the decision refusing him permanent leave to remain. After that date he remained in the United Kingdom without leave.

6 The deportation order made on 15 December 1988 was based on section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, concerning foreign nationals who remain unlawfully in the United Kingdom beyond the time limited by their leave.

7 On 17 February 1989 the decree absolute was pronounced in Mr and Mrs Singh' s divorce.

8 The appeal to an Adjudicator against the decision of 15 December 1988 was dismissed on 3 March 1989. In a determination of 17 August 1989 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed Mr Singh' s appeal against the decision of the Adjudicator, holding that he "had a Community right as the spouse of a British citizen who herself had a Community right to set up in business in this country."

9 On application by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for judicial review of that determination, the High Court of Justice (Queen' s Bench Division) referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling :

"Where a married woman who is a national of a Member State has exercised Treaty rights in another Member State by working there and enters and remains in the Member State of which she is a national for the purposes of running a business with her husband, do Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome and Council Directive 73/148 of 21 May 1973 entitle her spouse (who is not a Community national) to enter and remain in that Member State with his wife?"

10 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the Community legislation in issue, the course of the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

11 The question submitted by the national court for a preliminary ruling concerns the issue whether Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148, properly construed, require a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone with that spouse to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of the State of which he or she is a national.

12 It should also be observed that it is not alleged that Mr and Mrs Singh' s marriage was a sham. Moreover, although the marriage was dissolved by the decree absolute of divorce delivered in 1989, that is not relevant to the question referred for a preliminary ruling, which concerns the basis of the right of residence of the person concerned during the period before the date of that decree.

13 Mr Singh and the Commission submit that a national of a Member State who returns to establish himself in that State after having pursued an economic activity in another Member State is in the same situation as a national of another Member State who comes to establish himself in that country. In their view he must be treated in the same manner, in accordance with the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty, and he may therefore rely on Article 52 of the Treaty, particularly in relation to the right of residence of his spouse when the latter is not a national of a Member State.

14 The United Kingdom, on the other hand, submits that a Community national who returns to establish himself in his country of origin is not in a situation comparable to that of nationals of other Member States, because he enters and remains in that country by virtue not of Community law but of national law. Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148 are not therefore applicable to him. The United Kingdom also argues that the application of Community law to a national who returns to establish himself in his country of origin has paradoxical consequences, since Community law would inter alia allow him to be deported from that country, and maintains that to grant a right of residence to the spouse increases the risk of fraud associated with sham marriages.

15 In its judgment in Case 118/75 Watson and Belmann ([1976] ECR 1185, paragraph 16), the Court held that Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485) and Directive 73/148, cited above, implement a fundamental principle contained in Article 3(c) of the Treaty, which states that, for the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons.

16 The Court has also held, in its judgment in Case 143/87 Stanton v INASTI ([1988] ECR 3877, paragraph 13), that the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community, and preclude measures which might place Community citizens at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State.

17 For that purpose, nationals of Member States have in particular the right, which they derive directly from Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, to enter and reside in the territory of other Member States in order to pursue an economic activity there as envisaged by those provisions (see in particular the judgments in Case 48/75 Royer [1976] ECR 497, paragraph 31, and Case C-363/89 Roux v Belgian State [1991] ECR I-273, paragraph 9).

18 The provisions of the Council regulations and directives on freedom of movement within the Community for employed and self-employed persons, in particular Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68, cited above, Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 68/360, cited above, and Articles 1(c) and 4 of Directive 73/148, cited above, provide that the Member States must grant the spouse and children of such a person rights of residence equivalent to that granted to the person himself.

19 A national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person as envisaged by the Treaty in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or self-employed person, the conditions of his entry and residence were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under the Treaty or secondary law in the territory of another Member State.

20 He would in particular be deterred from so doing if his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of his Member State of origin under conditions at least equivalent to those granted them by Community law in the territory of another Member State.

21 It follows that a national of a Member State who has gone to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself in order to pursue an activity as a self-employed person in the territory of the Member State of which he is a national has the right, under Article 52 of the Treaty, to be accompanied in the territory of the latter State by his spouse, a national of a non-member country, under the same conditions as are laid down by Regulation No 1612/68, Directive 68/360 or Directive 73/148, cited above.

22 Admittedly, as the United Kingdom submits, a national of a Member State enters and resides in the territory of that State by virtue of the rights attendant upon his nationality and not by virtue of those conferred on him by Community law. In particular, as is provided, moreover, by Article 3 of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, a State may not expel one of its own nationals or deny him entry to its territory.

23 However, this case is concerned not with a right under national law but with the rights of movement and establishment granted to a Community national by Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty. These rights cannot be fully effective if such a person may be deterred from exercising them by obstacles raised in his or her country of origin to the entry and residence of his or her spouse. Accordingly, when a Community national who has availed himself or herself of those rights returns to his or her country of origin, his or her spouse must enjoy at least the same rights of entry and residence as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse chose to enter and reside in another Member State. Nevertheless, Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty do not prevent Member States from applying to foreign spouses of their own nationals rules on entry and residence more favourable than those provided for by Community law.

24 As regards the risk of fraud referred to by the United Kingdom, it is sufficient to note that, as the Court has consistently held (see in particular the judgments in Case 115/78 Knoors v Secretary of State for Economic Affairs [1979] ECR 399, paragraph 25, and Case C-61/89 Bouchoucha [1990] ECR I-3551, paragraph 14), the facilities created by the Treaty cannot have the effect of allowing the persons who benefit from them to evade the application of national legislation and of prohibiting Member States from taking the measures necessary to prevent such abuse.

25 The answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must therefore be that Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148, properly construed, require a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of the State of which he or she is a national. The spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered and resided in the territory of another Member State.

Decision on costs

 

Costs

26 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

 

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the question referred to it by the High Court of Justice (Queen' s Bench Division) by order of 19 October 1990, hereby rules:

Article 52 of the Treaty and Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services, properly construed, require a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the State of which he or she is a national. A spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered and resided in another Member State.

 





Like 1      
12 Jan 2014 9:51 AM by mike_walsh Star rating in Torrevieja. 594 posts Send private message

mike_walsh´s avatar

This thread is fascinating and due to its nature intellectually challenging on a Sunday morning. This especially so for those of us who find bureaucratic gobbledygook often contradictory and otherwise confusing. Where is the Plain English Society when you need it?

Anyhow, an illuminating and wonderfully erudite response. My wife is Ukrainian but a Spanish resident. I am both British and Irish nationality, but the UK passport one has expired. It was surplus to requirements unless I now need it for Nadia’s UK visit. Certainly much food for thought here and optimism too. Will study it in detail; thank you.

The visa to go to Gibraltar before we were married was I seem to recall £150.



_______________________

Russian - English Translations, Copywriting and Ghostwiting. Check my Website or email keyboardcosmetics@gmail.com for details

www.keyboardcosmetics.com




Like 1      
13 Jan 2014 7:50 AM by johnzx Star rating in Spain. 5242 posts Send private message

 Removed.

 
Posted in error, it was intended to be a private message. 
 Johnzx

This message was last edited by johnzx on 14/01/2014.



Like 1      

Pages: 1 |

Post reply    Start new thread


Previous Threads

Road side fines from the Guardia - 47 posts
Getting a UK car MOT'd in Spain - 39 posts
Indoor swimming pool Fuengirola - 2 posts
Place in the Sun - 4 posts
mortgages - 5 posts
Cameron awards MBE to his barber - 5 posts
form 210 - 1 posts
Amazon.es - 2 posts
condado golf society - 0 posts
Credit where its due - 4 posts
Passinthru - 2 posts
Thinking of moving to Spain - 9 posts
What do you thing traveling can provide us happyness ? - 2 posts
installation of air conditioning units in Murcia what should I expect to pay - 1 posts
Villa PAC's - 4 posts
Feliz Navidad - 0 posts
electronic submission of form 210 - 5 posts
Spanish private lessons or conversation - 0 posts
A place in the sun tv - 7 posts
Private Buyer looking to buy Spanish Property asap - 0 posts
Returning Sales goods - 0 posts
Outpatient drugs to be funded by patients from January onwards - 0 posts
Happy New Year. - 1 posts
costaluz lawyers - 7 posts
Putting Spanish plates on UK Reg vehicle - 12 posts

Number of posts in this thread: 13

DISCLAIMER:  All opinions posted on these message boards are the opinion solely of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Eye on Spain, its servants or agents.


1 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:
Email:


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x