Any Info on what comes after the 5 year Hungarian Resident Permit ?

I'm in exactly the same situation, (almost) same age, just different gender! My card has already been renewed, because we changed address, so I have residency until 2018, as a marital dependent. As long as our 'spouses' declare that they can support us when we come to renew it, we can stay. If they die before we do, we can still stay, if we have dependent children. My wife is eight years younger than me and (so far) in good health. My youngest is 12, so I should be OK for six more years. Then I would have to leave, if I didn't have a Hungarian passport/ sufficient independent means. Of course, the Hungarian State pension could form part of this. Both my adult sons, at that stage, would keep their residency rights and nationalities. My UK passport runs to 2019, when I would need to renew it before applying for a renewal of residency. These rights are the same across the EU, so you might want to check the EU websites. Of course, if Hungary and/or in my case, the UK were to leave the EU, or get thrown out...

HungaryDragon wrote:

.....so I have residency until 2018, as a marital dependent. As long as our 'spouses' declare that they can support us when we come to renew it, we can stay. If they die before we do, we can still stay, if we have dependent children. My wife is eight years younger than me and (so far) in good health. My youngest is 12, so I should be OK for six more years. Then I would have to leave, if I didn't have a Hungarian passport/ sufficient independent means. Of course, the Hungarian State pension could form part of this. Both my adult sons, at that stage, would keep their residency rights and nationalities. My UK passport runs to 2019, .... Of course, if Hungary and/or in my case, the UK were to leave the EU, or get thrown out...

That doesn't make sense. As a UK citizen, you can stay here indefinitely and you don't need permission to stay, you only have to go through the motions as a HU citizen must do. Obviously keeping your passport valid is sensible but you're entitled to stay here as an EU national without any stuff about your wife (presumably HU nationality) supporting you.  You are entitled in your own right.

EU referendums are another question.

I forgot to mention I am a US citizen and we have different issues because I am from a 3rd country as they refer to anyone outside of the EU.
Just wondered what would be next, another 5 year resdient permit, a 10 year one of something else.
Nothing has changed as far as us having outside income monthly and still at the same address etc.

Whether or not it makes sense to you, fluffy2560, I am only describing my own experience with officialdom! Non-Hungarian residents have to prove that they have the wherewithal to support themselves, either independently or through their spouse. Fact. End of. What are your sources for the assertions you make? EU referendums are not another question, because only EU citizens are given residency under these terms as long as they remain so. This is why the HM's government is upholding the right of its subjects (not citizens) living abroad to vote in the forthcoming referendum, because they are directly affected. If we go back to pre-accession conditions, there will be all kinds of additional requirements. Your advice is entirely erroneous and misleading, I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter whether you are a US citizen or an EU citizen, Marilyn, the Hungarian residency rules are the same, if you remain a dependent resident, as I do. There is an indefinite right to remain if you are married to a Hungarian citizen, subject to the spouse's declaration, but your status needs to be reviewed every five years, and a new card issued. Independent residents are required to produce a work permit and contract stating the salary. It's important to have one as proof of address, and to save carrying your passport, as ID. I haven't heard of a ten-year card.

HungaryDragon wrote:

Independent residents are required to produce a work permit and contract stating the salary. It's important to have one as proof of address, and to save carrying your passport, as ID. I haven't heard of a ten-year card.

Those who can show fiscal independence (such as a retirement income or regular foreign passive income) do not need to show a work permit to live in Hungary.

This and other details such as 10 year cards are described here:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ … 152_en.htm

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

I have checked on line but so far have not found too much info on what comes after the 5 year resident permit.

Under EU law, if married and living with your husband for five years, you should be able to get a permanent residency (10 year) permit which applies to third country residents (e.g. USA citizens). The relevant section under permanent residence at the link I posted above should help.

HungaryDragon wrote:

Whether or not it makes sense to you, fluffy2560, I am only describing my own experience with officialdom! Non-Hungarian residents have to prove that they have the wherewithal to support themselves, either independently or through their spouse. Fact. End of. What are your sources for the assertions you make? EU referendums are not another question, because only EU citizens are given residency under these terms as long as they remain so. This is why the HM's government is upholding the right of its subjects (not citizens) living abroad to vote in the forthcoming referendum, because they are directly affected. If we go back to pre-accession conditions, there will be all kinds of additional requirements. Your advice is entirely erroneous and misleading, I'm afraid.

I wasn't giving advice.  As far as I know you can come here and hang about as much as you want, including idle periods looking for work (i.e. and without necessarily having income) although claiming support on the State is another issue.  Hungarians do not have to prove they have income to support themselves and as far as I know EU citizens are treated the same by the bureaucracy.  That's the same everywhere in the EU. You can register as a resident but you don't need permission from anyone like the MoFA or immigration.  They have to treat you the same as they would a local. 

Re: the EU referendum, we all know Cameron will shaft those of us living in Europe because we're a hard to quantify risk.  In any case, if you've been away more than 15 years, you're not allowed to vote anyway which is yet another typical UK abuse of it's citizenry.

Thanks everyone for the advice and links.
Sometimes it is just a bit more complicated being from a 3rd country like the US.
I have friends in Hungary from the UK and they seem to have no immigration problems like I had.
We were so excited 4 years back when I first went into the immigration office in Budapest.
They gave us the run around so badly that we lost all faith in making HUngary our last move.
We were put off by immigration for over 6 months time, were afraid to buy a car at the time because everything was on hold because of immigration.
We didn't fix up our flat or invest as we first planned on doing in Hungary.
Now we are thinking of moving back to the US for good.
Just nice to know what is next if our plans change on going home.
My son married a HU citizen and now he is married to a Japanese citizen, he brought both wives to the US and neither of them went through half the hassle with US immigration as I had here in Hungary.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....and neither of them went through half the hassle with US immigration as I had here in Hungary.

I should point out Marilyn, that anyone except perhaps Canadians (?) could be treated equally with disdain by the US immigration authorities. I've visited the USA quite a few times on vacation and I would not go back there even if I was paid to do it. I'd avoid it and go somewhere with my cash.  The attitude of those dudes with badges is high handed and rude in the extreme.  I can only think of one exception, a black guy in San Francisco who was really just OK.  But that was a one time only event. Everywhere else, like Florida, Maine, American VI or Puerto Rico, forget it, awful people. It's just not worth the hassle.  I have been also been to Canada and they were quite the opposite - pleased to see us.   So I even though it might not be really true, one can perhaps imagine the hassle here in HU is probably being done on a reciprocal basis!

Yes, we once had a lay over in Canada and the immigration officer at the airport was really friendly with us.
My Japanese DIL visited my son 3 times in short order but never overstayed 89 days in a row. Her last visit in Las Vegas she was detainted for 3 hours while those idiots at the airport grilled her as to why she was coming into the US so often. They would not let her speak to my son who was waiting for her with no idea what was going on, so lame.This was before they were legally married.
As an American I have had a few weird episodes myself with US airport workers. My son and I once were both pulled aside and given the once over by the NTS workers. Strange thing was we were standing in different lines and still pulled out.
We both were wearing black leather jackets and black pants, taller then average with red hair and thin.A new profiling, gotta watch out for those "Gingers"!!
In general though when my 2 DIL's went to the "real" immigration offices in the US they both were taken seriously and given a warm friendly welcome to the USA.
Not so here in HU.
My bro and SIL both are US airline mechanics and they are given checks and pulled aside to have their papers looked over, sort of a relief to know they get checked too. The only down side is they do profile people. My bro looks like our Native American grandmother, very dark with black hair. He was going to work and about to enter a high security area, he had a badge etc. to enter. He was pulled aside and double checked but the 2 blonde guys with him who had NO security pass were just let in without a check, that's just so wrong.
My bro said he wouldn't be surprised if light haired blondes were behind all the flight troubles, just a joke from him as he gets a bit tired of race profiling.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Sometimes it is just a bit more complicated being from a 3rd country like the US.

Absolutely. It is not necessarily a DIY project. I know you have commented on this before that your husband did not want to use an attorney and was annoyed by differences in fees you were charged plus other issues, and that did result in more battles to personally fight. That will always leave a bad taste in one's mouth that can color your life view here for a long time. The price of a good attorney to handle the task is really a cheap price to pay for peace of mind. Personally fighting some micro battles with bureaucrats is not worth it, IMHO.

We were almost at the point of hiring a lawyer but my husband is a 100% do it yourself person and the principle got him more then anything. He was expecting a warmer welcome home then we got.
No expectations  is the best why to handle officials.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

but my husband is a 100% do it yourself person and the principle got him more then anything.

Even a skilled DIYer will smash their fingers a few times the first time they use a hammer, which is fine since they assume the risk and liabilies of their own fingers. Not so good if someone else's fingers are affected and get smashed in the learning process. 

Funny and so true.
My husband grew up in communist HUngary and it is his nature to do things by himself and be a self starter.'
If he wasn't so crazy independent, he probably would never have escaped Hungary back in 71.
Can be a real pain at  times to live with a person that will not listen to anyone but to their own drum.
Makes for an interesting life though.

klsallee wrote:

...... your husband did not want to use an attorney and was annoyed by differences in fees you were charged plus other issues, and that did result in more battles to personally fight. That will always leave a bad taste in one's mouth that can color your life view here for a long time. The price of a good attorney .....

Lawyers and bad taste.....absolutely....and accountants...

I deal with lawyers a lot in my work and also sometimes privately.  A good attorney will always be the one that helps you win your case. All the other ones are bad. On the other hand, mostly they get paid whatever happens and many are more than happy to take your cash even though cases are already known to be lost causes.  I've never actually had a straight answer for a lawyer on anything I've asked them.  It's always qualified. I've come to accept that mostly. 

I now always look upon it as a risk calculation. I ask myself all the time, what are the odds on the other side winning, how much will it cost financially or otherwise if I lose, do I actually trust this lawyer...etc?  One thing I do find about them is that they do waste a lot of time thinking about stuff which is irrelevant. 

If you ask them if that's the moon in the sky, you'll get 30 minutes or 5 pages discussing if that is the moon or not. I tend to cut them off when they start wandering off into la-la-land. Best method I've found, even though it seems really very rude and impolite is to have a specific agenda beforehand, talk quickly, be curt but clear, avoid peripheral discussions you are paying for, get straight to the point in hand without any minutes of lost chit chat, ask very specific questions and request specific  (i.e. committed) answers.

Reminds me of that joke: 

Q:"What do you call a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?"

A: "A good start!"

fluffy2560 wrote:

A good attorney will always be the one that helps you win your case.

Hm. For me a good attorney can also be someone who simply really tries hard to win your case. They may loose, but if they really pulled all the stops to try to win I can not fault them for a bad decision from a judge or jury. That is why there are appeals.

fluffy2560 wrote:

many are more than happy to take your cash even though cases are already known to be lost causes.

I would call that a bad attorney.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I've never actually had a straight answer for a lawyer on anything I've asked them.  It's always qualified.

It would be inappropriate and unprofessional of them to do otherwise. You may seem to have a slam-dunk case, but maybe the judge you get is a complete nincompoop and you loose the case. No good lawyer can do anything by try their hardest to win the case for you. Law may seem like it is built on black and white rules, but in reality it encompasses human nature and its endless shades of gray.

klsallee wrote:

....That is why there are appeals....

More $, £, € for the lawyers.  Perhaps a test is no-win/no-fee.  But I also know from experience that it's a numbers game. They think risk and would never take on a case that's got the remotest chance of failure on that basis.

fluffy2560 wrote:

many are more than happy to take your cash even though cases are already known to be lost causes.

klsallee wrote:

I would call that a bad attorney.

It happens.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I've never actually had a straight answer for a lawyer on anything I've asked them.  It's always qualified.

klsallee wrote:

It would be inappropriate and unprofessional of them to do otherwise. You may seem to have a slam-dunk case, but maybe the judge you get is a complete nincompoop and you loose the case. No good lawyer can do anything by try their hardest to win the case for you. Law may seem like it is built on black and white rules, but in reality it encompasses human nature and its endless shades of gray.

I think it's better for them to say the odds - rather than prevaricate with wishy-washy or feelgood statements. My last meeting with a lawyer (just last week) contained the exchange...."Me: I think they will give in. Lawyer: Maybe they will but who knows". The reason I made the statement was to get a comment/indication/response of the lawyer's belief in the merit of the case. It's not some kind of mind trick/game but I was not impressed with that answer.  I would have been more confident if he'd said 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 etc.  The thing is that  lawyers are hired for their experience, their advice and knowledge of working the system so estimates of the probability of a win should easy for them.   I couldn't argue with the lawyer's final qualification: "This is Hungary"

p.s. wandering off topic methinks....

fluffy2560 wrote:

I think it's better for them to say the odds - rather than prevaricate with wishy-washy or feelgood statements. My last meeting with a lawyer (just last week) contained the exchange...."Me: I think they will give in. Lawyer: Maybe they will but who knows". The reason I made the statement was to get a comment/indication/response of the lawyer's belief in the merit of the case. It's not some kind of mind trick/game but I was not impressed with that answer.  I would have been more confident if he'd said 1 in 3 or 1 in 5 etc.  The thing is that  lawyers are hired for their experience, their advice and knowledge of working the system so estimates of the probability of a win should easy for them.   I couldn't argue with the lawyer's final qualification: "This is Hungary

You hire an attorney for their knowledge and experience about the law and the local court system. Your seeking to get estimates for how someone will respond seems to me more a request to estimate the psychology of someone else. That is the realm of other professions. To get my attorney to give me his professional opinion I just directly ask "how good is my case". No beating around the bush with a leading statement. A question I actually did ask recently of my attorney about a civil action I may take in the near future; and I got an honest and professional answer. If you want odds of success simply ask your attorney for their win/loss ratio. If they do not want to tell you, get an attorney that will.