"this with 3-4 years is true but it has nothing to do with BeschV §46.2.
This § says that all GClers need no AMC, even if they are shorter than 3 years here."
That's how i understand it as well, the main problem to prove it to officials that this point of view is a correct one. And the local officials refuse to understand anything that can lead to a decision that a foreigner with a limited residence permit may not need a work permit - or agreement of employment office as it is now. What they do understand, is that they can lose any control over a situation when foreigners can work legally without permissions, that makes them not to think twice over a subject, i assure you.
I will give you one good example which illustrates the situation perfectly.
On Monday i was in a local court of law that processes legal disputes between employees and employers; it was a repeated claim vs. my last employer related to something like 1,4k euro that - by my opinion - he has to pay me. the first claim was filed some months ago, then right after a new year during the first hearing we came to an agreement that the employer pays me something like 800 euro at once, i from my side refuse from lodging any other claims against him that originate from our work contract, with an exception of a dismissal protection claim that is already in process. the remaining 600 euro i was going to get as a result of dismissal protection claim, still was losing like 40 euro but it would be ok if employer really paid at once as it was agreed.
The employer of course had his own thoughts in mind as well and right after the hearing sent me a letter in which he stated that i owe him more that 800 euro and therefore he will not pay me anything. in reality i did not and do not owe him anything, there is however a possibility that i will owe him those money in the future. anyways, such a position make it simply impossible to collect those money from him now, because any court of law would suspend an execution till the point of time when it becomes clear whether i owe him anything, and the process of suspension of execution would of course be paid from me, if that future possibility comes true.
as i am not fool and know very well that - with German laws - the debtor is a king unless he does not know what to do and applies for a bankrupcy, or (even worse, such kind of thing - my oipinion - only idiot or masochist can do) applies for exemption from remaining obligations, i sent my employer an answer and demanded an immediate payment if he does not want to have our agreement repealed. he did not pay, so i declared a resignation from that agreement; on the same day i filed a repeated claim in which added up a compensation of damages that arose from incompletion of agreement.
So on Monday was the first hearing in a new case and i was really surprised to find out how hostile a judge can be. he tried not to allow me to say anything, was extremely rude, tried to find thousand reasons why my claim should not be admitted at all, so to say, made everything possible to convince me and other people (it was a nice day, the hearings were out of schedule so many people were awaiting their turn
) and their lawyers, that the thing is not important at all and should not even be heard. in the end he had said one phrase that perfectly explains his behaviour - if my claim will have success then every lawyer will use it in their practice. that, of course, will greatly increase his workload because my employer is not the only one who does not want to pay accordingly to agreement, so i understand his frustration.
i guess this example shows perfectly that judges in local courts of laws do not care about justice when they feel that justice can bring them problems. do you think that officials in local emloyment and immigration offices are different? i highly doubt it. see for yourself - they gave Dracus ok only when they saw it that they are still in control of the situation - on the basis of three years rule ("kann"), never on the basis of §46 Abs. 2 ("muss").
"Do you know that according to BeschVerfV §9.4 they must give you BE without any restrictions?
Do you know that according to BeschVerfV §9.4 they must give you BE without any restrictions?"
Do you know old nice AuslG-VwV? there was one nice thing written there, here it is:
10.2.3.5 Durch ausländerrechtliche Auflagen soll der Ausländer im allgemeinen nicht an einen bestimmten Arbeitgeber
gebunden werden. Nur soweit der Ausnahmetatbestand nur für einen bestimmten Arbeitsplatz bei
einem bestimmten Arbeitgeber erfüllt ist (z.B. § 4 Abs. 4, § 8 AAV), kann auch die Bindung an einen bestimmten
Arbeitsplatz als auch Arbeitgeber erfolgen.
The officials of course did not correctly understood those words, and therefore bound every one foreigner to a particular employer ... some GCs have suffered from such a practice as well i guess?
P.S. 46.2 BeschV - it's a perfect example how little there can be in common between some politicians and reality ;)