France blocks plans to scrap 90-day rule visa rule

The link is behind a pay wall. 

Can you give a brief summary please?

Steve 

Hi Steve, (Olivepress) mine opened ok. The UK Telegraph story did not. V

try clearing your browsers cookies for the site.

Use Brave browser and Speedreader, bypasses most paywalls.

This is a translation of the text from the constitutional council about the possibility of a specific visa for second home owners.

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.

Art. 45 of the EU constitution states:

Article 45 - Freedom of movement and of residence

1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
2. Freedom of movement and residence may be granted, in accordance with the Treaties, to nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a Member State.

Or try this 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13008465/British-expats-France-visa-amendment-blocked.html

This should be readable to all:

French top court nixes cushy visa deal for rich Brits – POLITICO

I'm far from knowledgeable on the intricacies of the French legal system but it appears to me from reading the articles that it wasn't struck down by the Constitutional Court because it contravened French/EU law but was struck down because the original aim of the bill was targeted at achieving one thing but then had a number of "add-ons" included such that it had a much wider remit.

By implication, what that would mean is that a specific stand alone piece of legislation to achieve that element of the bill would likely not be struck down. Whether there is any real desire to take that forward or indeed whether the EU might look at it and ultimately take a dim view of it if it were to be progressed is anyone's guess!

Hi George,

Whilst I agree that, given sufficient support, a separate Bill could be proposed, personally I can't make the leap to, "what that would mean is that a specific stand alone piece of legislation to achieve that element of the bill would likely not be struck down".  There are many reasons why a proposed piece of legislation could be struck down - even before this rejection, concerns had been voiced about other groups of foreign nationals being treated less favourably than UK second home owners, even other UK citizens who do not own property in France, so whilst I don't think it's back to square one, I personally believe there's a long way to go.  

Probably of greater concern to those with second homes in Spain is that currently there's no evidence that the Spanish government is lobbying the EU on this issue.

As I suggested previously, keep your fingers crossed, but don't hold your breath.

Kind regards,

Kim

You slightly mis-interpret what my intended point was although I didn't really expand on it much here - a new piece of legislation could well be struck down but it won't be struck down for the same reasons as this one was.

This was struck down because the Court considered it effectively a "bolt-on" to the original legislation and not directly correlated to the original intention of the bill.

If a new piece of legislation was introduced specific to achieving a "2nd home owner visa for British citizens" then it wouldn't be struck out for the same reason as this one - but it could be struck out or ultimately ruled as unconstitutional/discriminatory in whichever Court - either in the French courts system or the EU courts system.

Personally, I don't think you should have legislation that specifically benefits one group of people over another - making it a "2nd home owner visa for anyone" would seem to make more sense and not be as discriminatory.

Hi George,

I quoted your words from the original post, but agree that had you added your subsequent words, "for the same reasons as this one was", your intent would have been explicit.

I can see why the visa issue was included as an add-on, perhaps for expediency, or in the hope that it would be lost in the considerable noise around the primary purpose of Macron's divisive Immigration Bill, but I agree that a cheap, fast-track, longer-term visa for second home owners should be available to all, not just UK citizens.

Kind regards,

Kim