|
11.3.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 60/1 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Second Chamber)
of 10 January 2006
in Case C-230/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht Mehmet Sedef v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)
(EEC-Turkey Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right to the extension of a residence permit - Conditions - Turkish national who was employed in the maritime shipping industry of a Member State for 15 years - Same employer for more than one year without interruption, but not up to the end of a period of three years - Periods of employment interrupted 17 times on account of the nature of the occupation)
(2006/C 60/02)
Language of the case: German
In Case C-230/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 18 March 2003, received at the Court on 26 May 2003, in the proceedings between Mehmet Sedef and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, in the presence of Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulman, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it ruled:
Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council created by the agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that:
|
— |
enjoyment of the rights conferred on a Turkish worker by the third indent of paragraph 1 of that article presupposes in principle that the person concerned has already fulfilled the conditions set out in the second indent of that paragraph; |
|
— |
a Turkish worker who does not yet enjoy the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under that third indent must be in legal employment without interruption in the host Member State unless he can rely on a legitimate reason of the type laid down in Article 6(2) to justify his temporary absence from the labour force; |
|
— |
Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 covers interruptions in periods of legal employment, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, and the relevant national authorities cannot, in this case, dispute the right of the Turkish worker concerned to reside in the host Member State. |