You are like the PAC Man, eating and killing applicants like they are the dots.l with a broken application of policies. You are the candle stick thief from Les Miserables. Being a plagiariser or a dropout and Lipstick and big hair styles and holding a foreign passport are no Defence to the callousness and Hurt. It is premeditated murder if by any deliberate act or omission, that someone will end up dead. Do you intend that someone will end up dead? There is a man from a country that is suffering racial profiling and racialism in the medical profession and he cannot get a job or payments from his clients. A Woman calls them and says so long as they don't pay, she will own it and she will cancel the payments. But, she cannot own it. Essentially, she is conspiring to kill him. She cannot own it if he is dead. He could sell it when he is alive. He asks you for assistance and under the EU code you are obligated to provide the assistance as soon as the request or application for help is made. You want to know why this is. It is stipulated in Article 13(1l of the directive. The French are beautiful people. The policy is applied correctly in Belgium. If you opt not to provide actual housing or food immediately at the time of the application, you need to provide sufficient cash benefit or other such finance resources so that the individual can procure his own housing or shelter and other necessities such as food. You can also refer them to the national services for housing and assistance. You should not be waiting for a French judgement involving a French situation involving EU policy being misapplied when it is certainly clearly EU policy and EU law and you already have an EU Belgian judgement on the scenario of "when" Benefits are applied. They are applied and provided at the time the application is made. Maybe you are a bank robber that started robbing the bank in Quebec after your husband saw "it" rise up one night after you drank some Viagra in a milk shake he gave you in 1998 in North Montreal. Then you went to France to start a rebellion after you failed to appear in Court in Quebec City and you worked as a social worker near a bus stop named Leningrad. So, you are rising up! What ever you are, you do not have the right to kill anyone with a dereliction of duty; not even yourself. You should not be waiting for a French judgement involving a French situation with EU policy being misapplied when it is certainly EU policy and law and you already have an EU judgement on the scenario. To rectify the problem, you could activate the Vitals card the refugees or Asylum seekers receive. Otherwise, you face Criminal liability under the penal code. Charges could include Attempt murder for every person who sought help and help was not provided under your supervision and obligated duty. ASYLUM/Refugee POLICY is not unlike airline policy as it deals with the Safety of the individual, many individuals and you cannot have people interrupting and doing what they want as it risks lives. It could never happen in the airline industry. We deny ourselves and our opinion in submission to the policies, law and guidelines established for the safety and preservation of lives. This is much the same with refugee/asylum seekers. This is the attitude you need to have. Read the following: Case C-79/13 Saciri and others (Arbeidshof te Brussel, Belgium, reference for a preliminary ruling on Articles 13 and 14 of the Reception Conditions Directive, 27 February 2014) Judgment // AG Opinion // Application 1. Article 13(5) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers must be interpreted as meaning All material reception conditions under this regulation must be provided from the time of the application according to Article 13(1) and 13(2) accordingly and where a Member State has opted to grant the material reception conditions in the form of financial allowances or vouchers, that those allowances must be provided from the time the application for asylum is made, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(1) of that directive that requires all reception requirements be met at the time of the application and must meet the minimum standards set out in Article 13(2) thereof. All material reception conditions under this regulation must be provided from the time of the application according to Article 13(1) and 13(2) accordingly. That Member State must ensure that the total amount of the financial allowances covering the material reception conditions is sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living and adequate for the health of applicants and capable of ensuring their subsistence, enabling them in particular to find housing(hotel, motel, hostel as they have no proof of income for standard rentals) having regard, if necessary, to the preservation of the interests of persons having specific needs, pursuant to Article 17 of that directive. The material reception conditions laid down in Article 14(1), (3), (5) and (8) of Directive 2003/9 do not apply to the Member States where they have opted to grant those conditions in the form of financial allowances only. Nevertheless, the amount of those allowances must be sufficient to enable minor children to be housed with their parents, so that the family unity of the asylum seekers may be maintained. 2. Directive 2003/9 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, where the accommodation facilities specifically for asylum seekers are overloaded, the Member States from referring the asylum seekers to bodies within the general public assistance system, provided that that system ensures that the minimum standards laid down in that directive as regards the asylum seekers are met. The failure to use all the available state resources to save the life of the individual who is in need of help as certified is also a Criminal offence once notified. See.... CHAPTER III OF THE FRENCH CRIMINAL CODE. ENDANGERING OTHER PERSONS Articles 223-1 to 223-20 SECTION I RISKS CAUSED TO OTHER PERSONS Articles 223-1 to 223-2 ARTICLE 223-1 (Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002) The direct exposure of another person to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to cause mutilation or permanent disability by the manifestly deliberate violation of a specific obligation of safety or prudence imposed by any statute or regulation is punished by one year's imprisonment and a fine of €15,000. ARTICLE 223-2 Legal persons may incur criminal liability pursuant to the conditions set out under article 121-2, for the offence defined under article 223-1. The penalties incurred by legal persons are: 1° a fine, pursuant to the conditions set out under article 131-38; 2° the penalties enumerated under 2°, 3°, 8° and 9° of article 131-39. The prohibition mentioned under 2° of article 131-39 applies to the activity in the exercise of which or on the occasion of the exercise of which the offence was committed. ------- OBSTRUCTING MEASURES OF ASSISTANCE AND OMISSION TO HELP Articles 223-5 to 223-7-1 ARTICLE 223-5 (Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002) Wilfully obstructing the arrival of help intended save a person from an imminent peril or to combat a disaster which endangers the safety of persons is punished by seven years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000. ARTICLE 223-6 (Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002) Anyone who, being able to prevent by immediate action a felony or a misdemeanour against the bodily integrity of a person, without risk to himself or to third parties, wilfully abstains from doing so, is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000. The same penalties apply to anyone who wilfully fails to offer assistance to a person in danger which he could himself provide without risk to himself or to third parties, or by initiating rescue operations.

 

 You are like the PAC Man, eating and killing applicants like they are the dots.l with a broken application of policies.  You are the candle stick thief from Les Miserables.     Being a plagiariser or a dropout and Lipstick and big hair styles and holding a  foreign passport are no Defence to the callousness and Hurt.  It is premeditated murder if by any  deliberate act or omission, that someone will end up dead.  Do you intend that someone will end up dead?  There is a man from a country that is suffering racial profiling and racialism in the medical profession and he cannot get a job or payments from his clients. A Woman calls them and says so long as they don't pay, she will own it and she will cancel the payments.  But, she cannot own it.  Essentially, she is conspiring to kill him.  She cannot own it if he is dead. He could sell it when he is alive.   He asks you for assistance and under the EU code you are obligated to provide the assistance as soon as the request or application  for help is made. You want to know why this is. It is stipulated in Article 13(1l of the directive.  The French are beautiful people.  The policy is applied correctly in Belgium. If you opt not to provide actual housing or food  immediately at the time of the application, you need to provide sufficient cash benefit or other such finance resources so that the individual can procure his own housing or shelter and other necessities such as food.  You can also refer them to the national services for housing and assistance. 

You should not be waiting for a French judgement involving a French situation involving EU policy being misapplied when it is certainly clearly EU policy and EU law and you already have an EU Belgian judgement on the scenario of "when" Benefits are applied.     They are applied and provided at the time the application is made.  Maybe you are a bank robber that started robbing the bank in Quebec after your husband saw "it" rise up one night after you drank some Viagra in a milk shake he gave you in 1998 in North Montreal.     Then you went to France to start a rebellion  after you failed to appear in Court in Quebec City and you worked as a social worker near a bus stop named  Leningrad.  So, you are rising up! What ever you are, you do not have the right to kill anyone with a dereliction of duty;  not even yourself.      

You should not be waiting for a French judgement involving a French situation with EU policy being misapplied when it is certainly EU policy and law and you already have an EU judgement on the scenario. To rectify the problem, you could activate the Vitals card the refugees or Asylum seekers receive.   Otherwise, you face Criminal liability under the penal code.   Charges could include Attempt murder for every person who sought help and help was not provided under your supervision and obligated duty.  

ASYLUM/Refugee POLICY is not unlike airline policy as it deals with the Safety of the individual, many individuals and you cannot have people interrupting  and doing what they want as it risks lives.  It could never happen in the airline industry.  We deny ourselves  and our opinion in submission to the policies, law and guidelines established for the safety and preservation of lives.  This is much the same with refugee/asylum seekers.  

This is the attitude you need to have.  Read the following:

Case C-79/13 Saciri and others (Arbeidshof te Brussel, Belgium, reference for a 

preliminary ruling on Articles 13 and 14 of the Reception Conditions Directive, 27 February 2014)

Judgment // AG Opinion // Application

1. Article 13(5) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum 

standards for the reception of asylum seekers must be interpreted as meaning All material reception conditions under this regulation must be provided from the time of the application according to Article 13(1) and 13(2) accordingly and  where a 

Member State has opted to grant the material reception conditions in the form of financial 

allowances or vouchers, that those allowances must be provided from the time the application 

for asylum is made, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(1) of that directive that requires all reception requirements be met at the time of the application and must meet the minimum standards set out in Article 13(2) thereof.  All material reception conditions under this regulation must be provided from the time of the application according to Article 13(1) and 13(2) accordingly.  That Member State must ensure that the total amount of the financial allowances covering the material reception conditions is sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living and adequate for the health of applicants and capable of ensuring their subsistence, enabling them in particular to find housing(hotel, motel, hostel as they have no proof of income for standard rentals) having regard, if necessary, to the preservation of the interests of persons having specific needs, pursuant to Article 17 of that directive. The material reception conditions laid down in Article 14(1), (3), (5) and (8) of Directive 2003/9 do not apply to the Member States where they have opted to grant those conditions in the form of financial allowances only. Nevertheless, the amount of those allowances must be sufficient to enable minor children to be housed with their parents, so that the family unity of the asylum seekers may be maintained.

2. Directive 2003/9 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, where the 

accommodation facilities specifically for asylum seekers are overloaded, the Member States 

from referring the asylum seekers to bodies within the general public assistance system, 

provided that that system ensures that the minimum standards laid down in that directive as 

regards the asylum seekers are met.

The failure to use all the available state resources to save the life of the individual who is in need of help as certified is also a Criminal offence once notified.  See....

CHAPTER III OF THE FRENCH CRIMINAL CODE.  

 ENDANGERING OTHER PERSONS Articles 223-1 to 223-20

 SECTION I

 RISKS CAUSED TO OTHER PERSONS Articles 223-1 to 223-2

ARTICLE 223-1

(Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002)

 The direct exposure of another person to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to cause mutilation or permanent

disability by the manifestly deliberate violation of a specific obligation of safety or prudence imposed by any statute or regulation is punished by one year's imprisonment and a fine of €15,000.

ARTICLE 223-2

 Legal persons may incur criminal liability pursuant to the conditions set out under article 121-2, for the offence

defined under article 223-1.

 The penalties incurred by legal persons are:

 1° a fine, pursuant to the conditions set out under article 131-38;

 2° the penalties enumerated under 2°, 3°, 8° and 9° of article 131-39.

 The prohibition mentioned under 2° of article 131-39 applies to the activity in the exercise of which or on the occasion of the exercise of which the offence was committed.

-------

OBSTRUCTING MEASURES OF ASSISTANCE AND OMISSION TO HELP

Articles 223-5 to

223-7-1

ARTICLE 223-5

(Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002)

 Wilfully obstructing the arrival of help intended save a person from an imminent peril or to combat a disaster which

endangers the safety of persons is punished by seven years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000.

ARTICLE 223-6

(Ordinance No. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September into force 1 January 2002)

 Anyone who, being able to prevent by immediate action a felony or a misdemeanour against the bodily integrity of a

person, without risk to himself or to third parties, wilfully abstains from doing so, is punished by five years' imprisonment

and a fine of €75,000.

 The same penalties apply to anyone who wilfully fails to offer assistance to a person in danger which he could

himself provide without risk to himself or to third parties, or by initiating rescue operations.