In this case the Court confirmed its power to give rulings on and interpret Decision 1/80, adopted by the EC Turkey Association Council. Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 13 of this Decision have direct effect in the Member States. After a specified period of legal employment in the Member State, a worker will have access to any paid employment of his/her choice. This necessarily implies the existence, at least at that time, of a right of residence for the person concerned.
The legality of the employment presupposes a stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force. The concept of ‘legal employment’ of Article 6 paragraph 1 Decision 1/80 cannot cover the situation of a Turkish worker who has been legally able to continue in employment only by reason of the suspensory effect deriving from his/her appeal pending a final decision by the national court or if that court dismisses his/her appeal. (full text)
After one year of legal employment, a Turkish worker is entitled to the renewal of his/her permit to work for the same employer. This ensures the continuity of employment with the same employer. After three years of legal employment, and subject to the priority to be given to workers of Member States, he/she may respond to another offer of employment with an employer of his/her choice for the same occupation. After four years of legal employment, he/she is entitled to free access to any paid employment of his/her choice. This follows from Article 6 Decision 1/80.
Article 7 paragraph 2 of Decision 1/80 provides the right for the child of a Turkish worker who has completed a course of vocational training in the host country to respond to any offer of employment there, irrespective of the length of time he/she has been resident in that Member State. One of the parents must have been legally employed in the Member State concerned for at least three years. The rights of this provision imply the existence of a connected right of residence for the child, without which the right to have access to the employment market would be rendered totally ineffective. (full text)
In this case, the Court explained Article 6 paragraph 1 Decision 1/80. For the application of this provision, it has to be determined whether the Turkish worker belongs to the legitimate labour force of a Member State. It must be ascertained whether the legal relationship of employment can be located within the territory of a Member State or if there is a sufficiently close link with that territory. The place where the Turkish worker was hired, the territory on which the paid employment was based and the applicable national legislation in the field of employment and social security law will be taken into consideration.
A stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force has to be considered in light of the legislation of the host Member State, which sets the conditions for the Turkish worker to enter the national territory and to work there.
This right is not conditional on the possession of any specific document issued by the authorities of the host Member State which establishes the legality of his/her employment. (full text)
The Court confirmed that Article 7 paragraph 1 Decision 1/80 has direct effect. Furthermore the Court explained that this provision does not prohibit the Member States from requiring that the family members of a Turkish worker live with him/her for the period of three years, in order to be entitled to reside in that Member State. Objective reasons may justify the family member living apart from the Turkish worker. Short interruptions of cohabitation, which are not intended to detract from residence together in the host Member State, are treated as periods in which the family member actually lived with the Turkish worker. (full text)
Children of Turkish workers who have completed a course of vocational training in the host Member State may respond to any offer of employment there, irrespective of the length of time they have been resident in that State, provided that one of the parents has been legally employed in that Member State for at least three years. Article 7 Decision 1/80 does not require the Turkish parent to be still working or residing in the host Member State when the child wishes to gain access to the employment market. (full text)
The Court explained the concept of worker, being duly registered as belonging to the labour force and legal employment with regard to Decision 1/80.
Reference should be made to the interpretation of the concept of worker under Union law. A worker must pursue an activity which is effective and genuine, to the exclusion of activities in such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary. The essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he/she receives remuneration.
The concept of being duly registered as belonging to the labour force applies to all workers who have complied with the conditions laid down by law and regulation in the host Member State and they are thus entitled to pursue an occupation in its territory.
The Court confirmed that legality of the employment presupposes a stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force of a Member State, and by virtue of this, implies the existence of an undisputed right of residence. (full text)
A Turkish worker already duly integrated into the labour force of the host Member State, through Article 6 paragraph 1 third indent, has an unconditional right to employment which implies the right to give up one job in order to seek another, which he/she may freely choose.
The rights of Article 6 paragraph 1 Decision 1/80are lost only if the worker has a permanent inactive status. A Turkish worker has the right to take a temporary break from work provided that he/she actually finds another job within a reasonable period, and therefore enjoys a right to reside there during that period. Detention pending trial is not enough to lose these rights. Union law prohibits the expulsion of a Turkish national which is based exclusively on general preventive grounds or automatically follows a criminal conviction. The concept of public policy assumes, in addition to the disturbance of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. (full text)
In this case, the Court ruled that the standstill clauses of Article 41(1) 1972 Additional Protocol and Article 13 Decision 1/80 have direct effect. The clauses prohibit the introduction of new national restrictions either on the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services or on the freedom of movement for workers from the date of the entry into force in the host Member State of the legal measure of which those Articles are a part. (full text)
Article 7 paragraph 1 Decision 1/80 applies to a person who has attained his/her majority and is the child of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State, even if that person was born and has always resided in the host State. The rights of this provision may be limited only on the basis of Article 14 of Decision 1/80 or if the person concerned has left the host State for a significant length of time without legitimate reason. When reviewing the expulsion of a Turkish national, Article 14 Decision 1/80 precludes national courts from not taking into account factual matters which occurred after the final decision of the competent authority and which no longer justify a limitation of the rights of the person concerned. (full text)
The principles protected by Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221 must be regarded as capable of being extended to Turkish workers who enjoy the rights recognised by Decision 1/80. To ensure the effectiveness of the judicial protection of Turkish workers, it is essential to grant those workers the same procedural guarantees as those granted by Union law to nationals of Member States and, therefore, to permit those workers to take advantage of the guarantees laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221.
That interpretation is valid not only for Turkish nationals whose legal status is defined in Article 6 of Decision 1/80, but also for members of their family whose status is governed by Article 7 of that Decision. (full text)
A Turkish national, as a child authorised to enter the territory of a Member State in order to join his/her family and who has acquired the right of free access to any paid employment of his/her choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 Decision 1/80, loses the right of residence in the host Member States only in the two situations provided for in Article 14 paragraph 1 of Decision 1/80.
This is even if he/she is over 21 years of age and no longer dependent of his/her parents, but lives independently in the Member State concerned, and was not available to join the labour force for several years because he/she was during that period serving an unsuspended sentence or imprisonment. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the requirements of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement, whereby Turkish nationals may not receive more favourable treatment than that applicable to nationals of the Member States. (full text)
Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State can still invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality. (full text)