Belgian city charging foreigners for registration

Dan133269

Belgian Interior Minister Joëlle Milquet (cdH, pictured) has launched an investigation into the decision of the City of Antwerp to have its immigration department charge a €250 registration fee for non-Belgians. Antwerp’s city council decided last week to increase the one-off payment from €17 to 250, to "cover costs". According to Antwerp Mayor Bart De Wever, "each new registration file comes with a price tag of €330, when you take into account all the IT costs, document validity checks and contacts with the Immigration Service." Milquet told De Standaard that she condemns the increase but will await a formal endorsement by the city council before requesting an official analysis.

http://www.xpats.com/en/headlines/minister-condemns-price-hike-antwerp-newcomers

My immediate reaction is that this must be foul of some Article of the TFEU. It wouldn't be the first time that Belgian law is contrary to EU law, which is ironic seeing as Brussels is the home of the EU institutions. Anyone know for definite whether this is contrary to EU law?

johnnyskeleton

Dan133269 wrote: »

http://www.xpats.com/en/headlines/minister-condemns-price-hike-antwerp-newcomers

My immediate reaction is that this must be foul of some Article of the TFEU. It wouldn't be the first time that Belgian law is contrary to EU law, which is ironic seeing as Brussels is the home of the EU institutions. Anyone know for definite whether this is contrary to EU law?

A registration fee for people moving to the town is not illegal but if it is free for Belgians but not for non Belgian Europeans then it is illegal.

Dan133269

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A registration fee for people moving to the town is not illegal but if it is free for Belgians but not for non Belgian Europeans then it is illegal.

Exactly, it is illegal then. Do you know what Article of EU Treaty or any directive/regulation to support this? Would it simply be the free movement of persons provisions?

NoQuarter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A registration fee for people moving to the town is not illegal but if it is free for Belgians but not for non Belgian Europeans then it is illegal.

What are you thinking?

I cant see it as a bar to free movement or persons/workers. Maybe against equality provisions?

But is it really discriminatory? After all, there are differences between being foreign or not. If, as the article says, there are services needed for processing foreigners coming in, well then I dont see anything wrong with it?

Dan133269

NoQuarter wrote: »

What are you thinking?

I cant see it as a bar to free movement or persons/workers. Maybe against equality provisions?

But is it really discriminatory? After all, there are differences between being foreign or not. If, as the article says, there are services needed for processing foreigners coming in, well then I dont see anything wrong with it?

Seems discriminatory to me, one rule for Belgians and another for other EU citizens. I was under the impression that all EU citizens must be treated the same, barring certain unavoidable exclusions.

If there are services needed for foreigners coming in, then Belgium should have thought about that before it joined the EU, and especially before it agreed to having the EU institutions in its capital.

Equality provisions may be a more appropriate place, yes.

Grolschevik

NoQuarter wrote: »

I cant see it as a bar to free movement or persons/workers. Maybe against equality provisions?

I would have thought it would conflict with Article 45 TFEU: "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment".

"It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:

(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose."

Given, for example, this judgment:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d599b28e7b2958458aba43982b56c24517.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Oah4Le0?text=&docid=125063&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=678567

"The Court:
Declares that, by requiring that migrant workers and dependent family members comply with a residence requirement - namely, the 'three out of six years' rule - in order to be eligible to receive funding for higher educational studies pursued outside the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992."

NoQuarter

But theres nothing in the article about workers/working? You cant rely on the FMOW provisions if youre not a worker.

While the right to move freely is there, its not, like everything in law, an unrestricted right. You cant show up to an airport without a passport and demand they let you travel to France etc! In my opinion, anyways, it wouldnt be found discriminatory.

johnnyskeleton

Dan133269 wrote: »

Exactly, it is illegal then. Do you know what Article of EU Treaty or any directive/regulation to support this? Would it simply be the free movement of persons provisions?

18 and 20

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

What are you thinking?

My opinion is that such a measure is in contravention of the Eu treaty. In my view it is a disproportionate discrimination between citizens if member states.

I cant see it as a bar to free movement or persons/workers. Maybe against equality provisions?

The issue is not about moving to Belgium, it is as I understand it, about moving from one city to another and registering with their local council. If an Irish person and a Belgian live in Brussels and move to Antwerp, the Irish person has to pay an administrative fee to register their new residence in Antwerp, but the Belgian citizen does not.

It seems an open and shut case of violation of non-discrimination principles to me, although arguably if the situation was reversed they could treat the Belgian citizen less favourably.

If it were a free movement of persons matter, directive 2004/38 appears to prohibit administrative fees for applying.

But is it really discriminatory? After all, there are differences between being foreign or not. If, as the article says, there are services needed for processing foreigners coming in, well then I dont see anything wrong with it?

Perhaps this explains it. If they were "foreign" then there would be no problem. But they're not. They're all EU citizens. If Belgium doesn't accept that then they can leave the union or apply for a derogation.

NoQuarter

Wasnt there an EU case that decided that as there was no border crossed, EU laws didnt apply? The name escapes me!

Edit: pulled this straight from Craig & De Burca:

"We saw in Chp 21 that the ECJ has repeatedly held that the EU law rights of movement and residence cannot be invoked in a "wholly internal situation". The issue geneally arose either where a national sought to challenge an internal restriction on his or her freedom of movement within a member state as in Saunders (Case 175/78), or here a national of a member state who had not previously exercised rights of movement outside that state sought to rely on EU law to bring a non- EU family member ... blah blah....".

I didnt bother loooking at chapter 21. My main point is that its certainly not clear cut that its discrimination in my eyes.

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

Wasnt there an EU case that decided that as there was no border crossed, EU laws didnt apply? The name escapes me!

In competition law, European competition rules do not apply unless there is a intra European trade dimension. So state aid to clonakilty pudding over west cork pudding is not really a matter of eu competition law (unless of course one company is owned by a company from outside roi). But if favourable treatment was given to idl over bushmills, then it can be litigated as a matter of eu law.

It's not the crossing of the border that's significant (if so, it would mean that there is no freedom of trade in intangible services), but whether the matter is one that affects more than just one member state or nationals of one member state.

So if you are asking whether is there case law on eu law bing irrelevant to internal-only trade, the answer is yes. If you are asking if the fact that someone or something is not physically crossing a border excludes the application of eu law, then the answer is no.

NoQuarter

My above edited post was in the citizenship chapter by the way. Nothing to do with competition law. Where you say "the fact that someone or something is not physically crossing a border excludes the application of eu law, then the answer is no", I think that is wrong in certain situations.

enda1

It's no big surprise the Flemish doing this. Vilvoorde did/do something similar in contravention of European law whereby they don't let non Dutch speakers buy property there.

The country is a profoundly racist place.

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

My above edited post was in the citizenship chapter by the way. Nothing to do with competition law. Where you say "the fact that someone or something is not physically crossing a border excludes the application of eu law, then the answer is no", I think that is wrong in certain situations.

Apart from the fact that you are selectively quoting me ie ignoring the part about how the issue is whether there is an intra member state dimension not whether a physical border was crossed, your position is now that of a logical fallacy.

You said that a border must be crossed to invoke eu law. I said that is not true. You are now saying that a border must be crossed to invoke eu law in certain situations.

If you really believe that eu law has no bearing on an increased administrative fee for non-host state nationals over host state nationals, then that's your position and the OP can take it that there is a view in certain quarters that what the city of Antwerp is proposing is valid in EU law.

NoQuarter

There is no logical fallacy.

Like everything in law, there are exceptions. If you read that chapter of Craig & De Burca like I have, you will see the part on "wholly internal situations" that says what I quoted above. That is one position. The chapter then goes on to describe a number of situations including the Chen case where that isnt the case. Contradicting law and law with distinguishd positions is a common occurance as you well know.

To summarise my initial point, I dont think the discrimination is strong enough to warrant the ECJ ruling against it due the the fact that the charge is for services directly in relation to processing foreigners. I brought up the wholly internal situation on foot of you saying the charge is in relation to moving from one part of Belgium to another, and in that case, I can see an argument that EU law doesnt kick in.

Im not arguing conclusively one way or another, I'm simply playing devil's advocate as I havent looked into 1/10th of the law I would need to to actually come to any final conclusion. My main point was that the discrimination the OP thinks is so obvious, is not so.

Dan133269

NoQuarter wrote: »

There is no logical fallacy.

Like everything in law, there are exceptions. If you read that chapter of Craig & De Burca like I have, you will see the part on "wholly internal situations" that says what I quoted above. That is one position. The chapter then goes on to describe a number of situations including the Chen case where that isnt the case. Contradicting law and law with distinguishd positions is a common occurance as you well know.

To summarise my initial point, I dont think the discrimination is strong enough to warrant the ECJ ruling against it due the the fact that the charge is for services directly in relation to processing foreigners. I brought up the wholly internal situation on foot of you saying the charge is in relation to moving from one part of Belgium to another, and in that case, I can see an argument that EU law doesnt kick in.

Im not arguing conclusively one way or another, I'm simply playing devil's advocate as I havent looked into 1/10th of the law I would need to to actually come to any final conclusion. My main point was that the discrimination the OP thinks is so obvious, is not so.

I see where you're coming from with the wholly internal situation line of reasoning. However, even if that were the case, it is possible that an EU citizen of non-Belgian nationality could sign a work contract and then move to Antwerp, or indeed could have started work in Belgium while residing outside the country and commuting everyday, e.g. Netherlands or wherever. In that instance, the cross-border aspect would definitely be satisfied.

As regards the point that the charge is for services directly related to processing foreigners' documents, I don't think that's relevant really. It is not a "service" but in fact a legal requirement under Belgian law to register at the local "commune" i.e. local council. If you don't, you may be liable for a fine (not entirely sure) and you will also not be able to avail of your social security contributions towards healthcare.

KoukiKeith

Similar situation when I lived in Utrecht. Non-Dutch residents had to register & pay a fee with the local Municipality. AFAIK, Dutch residents also had to register & perhaps pay a nominal fee.

Most likely justified if the fee is not disproportionate.

There's a case relating to administration fees & FMOP provisions but its name escapes me at the moment.

KoukiKeith

(Study procrastination at its finest)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF

Article 8 of Directive 2004/38/EC permits the registration process. However, the process must be seen as corresponding to the practice in most MS whereby citizens have the duty to have themselves entered on the population register.

Going by my previous statement, it's probably not an uncommon practice.

ResearchWill

KoukiKeith wrote: »

(Study procrastination at its finest)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF

Article 8 of Directive 2004/38/EC permits the registration process. However, the process must be seen as corresponding to the practice in most MS whereby citizens have the duty to have themselves entered on the population register.

Going by my previous statement, it's probably not an uncommon practice.

There is no issue with a registration process (common in most of Europe) the problem is having a different rule for citizens of the country and other EU citizens. A EU citizen exercising free movement can not be treated less favourable than a local.

The issue here is that a EU citizen must pay more than a local for the same process. That would in my opinion be seen as a barrier to free movement, unless it can be shown to be fair.

Article 25 says

Article 25
General provisions concerning residence documents
1. Possession of a registration certificate as referred to in Article 8, of a document certifying permanent residence, of a certificate attesting submission of an application for a family member residence card, of a residence card or of a permanent residence card, may under no circumstances be made a precondition for the exercise of a right or the completion of an administrative formality, as entitlement to rights may be attested by any other means of proof.

2. All documents mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents.

professore

I suspect this is aimed at North Africans rather than EU citizens. Bart De Wever is not a paragon of multiculturalism to say the least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_De_Wever

There's also a lovely picture of Herman Van Rompuy (President of the European Council) at De Wever's book launch. That's the kind of people holding high office in the EU !!!!

Views

In 2008, while being interviewed on an early morning TV programme, he stated that: "I think that there is no French-speaking minority in Flanders; there are immigrants who have to adapt. We ask the Moroccans and the Turks to do that. We don't say to them 'There's a lot of you, so Arabic will become an official language.' That's crazy."[1]

He is also an admirer of the Irish conservative philosopher Edmund Burke, and his Burkean conservatism.:eek: His ideas are also influenced by British writer Theodore Dalrymple.

Controversies

In 1996, he was photographed attending a conference by the French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.[3] De Wever explained his attendance by saying that "in a democracy, everyone should have the right to express his opinion, even if it's an opinion I detest. And I always prefer to get my information first hand than to get it in a filtered way."

In October 2007, in reaction to the apology of the Mayor of Antwerp for his city's collaboration in the deportation of Jews during World War II, Bart De Wever said that :

"Antwerp did not organise the deportation of the Jews, it was the victim of Nazi occupation... Those who were in power at the time had to take tricky decisions in difficult times. I don't find it very courageous to stigmatise them now."[4]

He later apologized to Antwerp Jews.[5] Following these events, in a tribune published in Le Monde, the Belgian French-speaking writer Pierre Mertens said that [Bart De Wever was] a "convinced negationist leader". De Wever decided to sue Mertens in court for this allegation.[6][7]

De Wever attended the funeral of Vlaams Belang-founder Karel Dillen in April 2007.[8]

KoukiKeith

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is no issue with a registration process (common in most of Europe) the problem is having a different rule for citizens of the country and other EU citizens. A EU citizen exercising free movement can not be treated less favourable than a local.

The issue here is that a EU citizen must pay more than a local for the same process. That would in my opinion be seen as a barrier to free movement, unless it can be shown to be fair.

My initial point was that Belgian nationals when moving to a new commune probably have to register with the new local authority (as was the case in Utrecht). I'm hypothesising. If that scenario existed, they are technically subject to the same rules and the price diff should be justified.

ResearchWill

KoukiKeith wrote: »

My initial point was that Belgian nationals when moving to a new commune probably have to register with the new local authority (as was the case in Utrecht). I'm hypothesising. If that scenario existed, they are technically subject to the same rules and the price diff should be justified.

It would be very difficult to justify a price difference. Registration in a new district is common all over Europe but Article 25 does not allow any fees to be greater than a local would pay.

KoukiKeith

ResearchWill wrote: »

It would be very difficult to justify a price difference.

That would surely depend on the difference. Rights of residence are conditional which obviously need to be verified.

In this case, the fact that the fee is 250e does seem ridiculously high & I can't see Belgian nationals (even though the country is, in general, exorbitant) having to pay anywhere near that amount.

ResearchWill

KoukiKeith wrote: »

That would surely depend on the difference. Rights of residence are conditional which obviously need to be verified.

In this case, the fact that the fee is 250e does seem ridiculously high & I can't see Belgian nationals (even though the country is, in general, exorbitant) having to pay anywhere near that amount.

My understanding is the Belgins pay €17 if they had to pay €250 fine but €17.

Dan133269

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is no issue with a registration process (common in most of Europe) the problem is having a different rule for citizens of the country and other EU citizens. A EU citizen exercising free movement can not be treated less favourable than a local.

The issue here is that a EU citizen must pay more than a local for the same process. That would in my opinion be seen as a barrier to free movement, unless it can be shown to be fair.

Article 25 says

Article 25
General provisions concerning residence documents
1. Possession of a registration certificate as referred to in Article 8, of a document certifying permanent residence, of a certificate attesting submission of an application for a family member residence card, of a residence card or of a permanent residence card, may under no circumstances be made a precondition for the exercise of a right or the completion of an administrative formality, as entitlement to rights may be attested by any other means of proof.

2. All documents mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents.

Nail on the head. This clears it up completely, thanks.

professore wrote: »

I suspect this is aimed at North Africans rather than EU citizens. Bart De Wever is not a paragon of multiculturalism to say the least:

The underlying tensions and prejudices are so noticeable now, it’s disgusting. There were billboards all over Flanders recently with the caption “I want French speakers out of Belgium”. It was a pun on the name “Franz” and the word for French speaker in Dutch. It really beggars belief that the EU institutions are here.

Solair

This kind of thing will do Antwerp immense damage in terms of its reputation as a cosmopolitan, artsy, design centre.

The EU really needs to step in on something like this though, it's literally on its doorstep and will impact upon EU employees, many of whom opt to live and spend their money in Antwerp! Many people working in Brussels actually live in Antwerp as it's seen as a nicer city by a lot of people.

It's even more ironic given how much Belgium (including Antwerp) benefits from the massive presence of international organisations such as the EU, NATO and aspects of the UN.

Perhaps it's time to submit a bid to have them come to Dublin or something

On the legal side of things, Spain also required EU citizens to apply for a "Residencia" which effectively was a residency permit complete with ID card and fingerprinting! That was successfully challenged by the EU and is now just a case of getting a NIE number which is pretty much just a tax ID, albeit it still discriminating against non-Spaniards as it's not the same as their DNI numbers. It would be like having a PPS number and a FID (Foreigner ID number) So, there are certainly already examples of cases like this where the EU has taken action won.

I think in the case of Belgium, it's just ridiculous for them to discriminate against EU nationals while hosting the EU institutions and benefiting absolutely enormously from them. Without them, Brussels would be a drab central European city of little significance.

Dan133269

Solair wrote: »

This kind of thing will do Antwerp immense damage in terms of its reputation as a cosmopolitan, artsy, design centre.

The EU really needs to step in on something like this though, it's literally on its doorstep and will impact upon EU employees, many of whom opt to live and spend their money in Antwerp! Many people working in Brussels actually live in Antwerp as it's seen as a nicer city by a lot of people.

It's even more ironic given how much Belgium (including Antwerp) benefits from the massive presence of international organisations such as the EU, NATO and aspects of the UN.

Perhaps it's time to submit a bid to have them come to Dublin or something

On the legal side of things, Spain also required EU citizens to apply for a "Residencia" which effectively was a residency permit complete with ID card and fingerprinting! That was successfully challenged by the EU and is now just a case of getting a NIE number which is pretty much just a tax ID, albeit it still discriminating against non-Spaniards as it's not the same as their DNI numbers. It would be like having a PPS number and a FID (Foreigner ID number) So, there are certainly already examples of cases like this where the EU has taken action won.

I think in the case of Belgium, it's just ridiculous for them to discriminate against EU nationals while hosting the EU institutions and benefiting absolutely enormously from them. Without them, Brussels would be a drab central European city of little significance.

I couldn't agree more.

I think I'll e-mail the European Commission, I believe they have departments for dealing with citizens' queries like this. I will post up their response if/when I get one.

KoukiKeith

It seems this story is doing the rounds on Twitter at the mo. Some eurocrats have picked up on it.

Solair

Not surprising really, it directly impacts many EU, UN, NATO and other international agencies' employees

Solair

Solair wrote: »

This kind of thing will do Antwerp immense damage in terms of its reputation as a cosmopolitan, artsy, design centre.

The EU really needs to step in on something like this though, it's literally on its doorstep and will impact upon EU employees, many of whom opt to live and spend their money in Antwerp! Many people working in Brussels actually live in Antwerp as it's seen as a nicer city by a lot of people.

It's even more ironic given how much Belgium (including Antwerp) benefits from the massive presence of international organisations such as the EU, NATO and aspects of the UN.

Perhaps it's time to submit a bid to have them come to Dublin or something

On the legal side of things, Spain also required EU citizens to apply for a "Residencia" which effectively was a residency permit complete with ID card and fingerprinting! That was successfully challenged by the EU and is now just a case of getting a NIE number which is pretty much just a tax ID, albeit it still discriminating against non-Spaniards as it's not the same as their DNI numbers. It would be like having a PPS number and a FID (Foreigner ID number) So, there are certainly already examples of cases like this where the EU has taken action won.

I think in the case of Belgium, it's just ridiculous for them to discriminate against EU nationals while hosting the EU institutions and benefiting absolutely enormously from them. Without them, Brussels would be a drab central European city of little significance.

That's not true. You still need a residency permit. They just don't give out ID cards now, or require fingerprinting, but you do need to get a certificate which you have to pay for, and they won't let you register at all unless you have a job or proof of income. That seems way more discriminatory than the Belgian rule. If I hadn't found a job here in Spain within 90 days, I technically wouldn't be allowed to live here. I wouldn't have access to healthcare or anything.