|
Post by crabtree on Dec 21, 2023 12:23:22 GMT 1
I have been looking for a clear statement but nothing firm has appeared in the UK news. Today The Times has a report that looks good on the surface but it does remind us that the “Supreme” Court in France could remove it. I wouldn’t mind showing the deeds to my house at the EU border if I can avoid 90/180. I think it is called the Conseil Constitutionnel.
|
|
|
Post by annabellespapa on Dec 21, 2023 12:40:10 GMT 1
Thanks Lurcher, the link worked for me and as it mentions the note of caution about it not being constitutional as it gives an exemption for British 2nd home owners if passed.
|
|
|
Post by omegal on Dec 21, 2023 12:53:34 GMT 1
Whilst hoping it will get passed by the supreme court, I wonder where the Americans, Australians etc stand on this?
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jan 25, 2024 18:00:57 GMT 1
Bad news for second home owners hoping for the change to be implemented:
This is a (deepl) translation of the text from the constitutional council about the possibility of a specific visa for second home owners. It’s a NO.
Article 16 inserts a new article L. 312-4-1 into the Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile (Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum), which provides that a long-stay visa is issued automatically to British nationals who own a secondary residence in France.
80. The applicant Members maintained that Article 16 had no place in the Act on the grounds that it had been introduced at first reading under a procedure contrary to Article 45 of the Constitution.
81. Introduced at first reading, the purpose of these provisions is to amend the specific conditions of residence in France for certain British nationals. These provisions therefore have no connection, even indirect, with the aforementioned provisions of Articles 1, 3, 6 and 7 of the initial Bill. Nor are they connected, even indirectly, with any of the other provisions which appeared in the draft law submitted to the Senate.
82. Consequently, without the Constitutional Council prejudging the conformity of the content of these provisions with other constitutional requirements, it must be held that, having been adopted in accordance with a procedure contrary to the Constitution, they are therefore contrary to the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by lurcher on Jan 25, 2024 20:02:11 GMT 1
Not the news I wanted. Another nail in the coffin. How do you spell immobilier?
|
|
|
Post by woolybanana on Jan 25, 2024 23:31:23 GMT 1
My understanding is that it was turned down because it was not relevant or part of the purpose of the total Act, rather than because it was wrong. France is not the only country with a ‘Supreme Court’.
|
|
|
Post by another on Jan 26, 2024 9:08:04 GMT 1
It was rejected effectively for being discriminatory as it only applied to British 2nd home owners and not other non EU citizens.
Honestly it never stood a chance.
|
|
|
Post by omegal on Jan 26, 2024 19:53:54 GMT 1
I stated it somewhere that the UK was not the only country that was affected, so to let Brits gather favour would be a problem that France would have to solve for all the other countries not in Schengen and that was never really going to happen.
|
|