Case C‑268/11

Atilla Gülbahce

v

Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC‑Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), first indent — Rights of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force — Retroactive withdrawal of a residence permit’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 8 November 2012

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of relevant EU law — Reformulation of the questions

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

2. International agreements — EEC‑Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Access of Turkish nationals duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State to employment in that Member State and the corresponding right of residence — Turkish national with a temporary residence permit by reason of his marriage to a national of the Member State of employment — Retroactive withdrawal of the residence permit, after one year’s legal employment, because matrimonial cohabitation ceased — No fraudulent conduct on the part of the worker — Withdrawal not permissible

   (Decision No 1/80 of the EEC‑Turkey Association Council, Arts 7(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 31, 32)

2.  The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council EEC‑Turkey must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the completion of the period of one year of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

   That provision cannot be construed as permitting a Member State to modify unilaterally the scope of the system of gradual integration of Turkish workers in the host Member State’s labour force by denying to a worker who has been permitted to enter its territory and who has lawfully pursued a genuine and effective economic activity for a continuous period of more than one year with the same employer the rights which the three indents of that provision confer on him progressively according to the duration of his employment. Such an interpretation would render Decision No 1/80 meaningless and deprive it of any practical effect, since the wording of Article 6(1) of that decision is general and unconditional in that it does not permit the Member States to restrict the rights which that provision confers directly on Turkish workers.

   (see paras 48, 49, 56, operative part)

Case C‑268/11

Atilla Gülbahce

v

Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC‑Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), first indent — Rights of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force — Retroactive withdrawal of a residence permit’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 8 November 2012

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of relevant EU law — Reformulation of the questions

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

2. International agreements — EEC‑Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Access of Turkish nationals duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State to employment in that Member State and the corresponding right of residence — Turkish national with a temporary residence permit by reason of his marriage to a national of the Member State of employment — Retroactive withdrawal of the residence permit, after one year’s legal employment, because matrimonial cohabitation ceased — No fraudulent conduct on the part of the worker — Withdrawal not permissible

   (Decision No 1/80 of the EEC‑Turkey Association Council, Arts 7(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 31, 32)

2.  The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council EEC‑Turkey must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the completion of the period of one year of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

   That provision cannot be construed as permitting a Member State to modify unilaterally the scope of the system of gradual integration of Turkish workers in the host Member State’s labour force by denying to a worker who has been permitted to enter its territory and who has lawfully pursued a genuine and effective economic activity for a continuous period of more than one year with the same employer the rights which the three indents of that provision confer on him progressively according to the duration of his employment. Such an interpretation would render Decision No 1/80 meaningless and deprive it of any practical effect, since the wording of Article 6(1) of that decision is general and unconditional in that it does not permit the Member States to restrict the rights which that provision confers directly on Turkish workers.

   (see paras 48, 49, 56, operative part)