User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2019/September

Template:Same-sex unions
Hi. I modified your modification. There are restrictions on EU citizens residing in other EU countries, correct? I think this only applies to residents. I changed the wording to reflect that. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ... I struggled a bit with the wording for this, it's hard to express simply. Essentially, there are *no* restrictions on the right of EU citizens to live in any of the member states of the EU (a limit can be placed on an individual basis if a person is proven to be of a considerable threat).  The particular case that was relevant in Bulgaria concerned an Australian-French same-sex couple, the European Court of Justice had earlier ruled that all member-states must recognise same sex marriages from other member states even if a member state itself did not recognise same-sex marriage. So in the case of the Australian-French couple, the issue of the French partner's residency was not immediately of issue, it was whether or not the Australian partner had a right to reside in Bulgaria on the basis of the marriage to her French partner (freedom of movement in the EU applies to families, not just individuals).  If both same-sex partners were EU citizens there would be no need for recognition, so the wording I chose emphasised the non-EU/EU partnership that was recognised.  The question of same-sex marriage recognition in relation to other issues would be assumed given the Court's decision, but as far as I know has not been tested in other areas to date. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

So, if the French spouse had never been to Bulgaria, and was still living in France, the Australian would still have the right to residence in Bulgaria? The way I read the law, Bulgaria couldn't do anything that would restrict the EU citizen, so in this scenario I would think they could deny residency to the Ozzie because that would have no effect on the EU citizen. Also, the original ruling was only for citizens of the country in question, but it would make sense that that's been broadened.

I thought there were still some limits to the freedom of movement of people is at least parts of the EU. — kwami (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The key issue is that freedom of movement applies to families - residency cannot be denied because the Australian is an EU family member. Yes, the original 2018 European Court of Justice ruling applied to a US-Romanian couple wanting to settle in Romania, the July 2019 decision of the Supreme Administrative Court in Bulgaria on the French-Australian couple was bound by the ECJ ruling. EU law on the right of freedom of movement of immediate family members (partner, child, parent) is very clear.  I don't think the 2018 ECJ ruling was limited in any way to "citizens of the country" ... that would have been impossible given EU freedom of movement law - the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court has affirmed the 2018 ECJ ruling, not extended it. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On current status of Freedom of Movement in the EU/EEA see: Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the original ruling was very narrow, and I wondered how it could be maintained.

How's this, Limited to residency rights for foreign spouses of EU citizens I don't think anything there is incorrect? The wordier version was a bit hard to follow. If this wording is taken at face value, I think it covers the situation. Is it missing anything? — kwami (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, good idea, that will work.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Adolf Sturmthal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adolf Sturmthal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Adolf Sturmthal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Curt  内蒙  17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)