On the 24th of September the CJEU delivered its judgement in the Demirkan case. Ms Demirkan, a Turkish national, had requested a short-term tourist Visa to German authorities to go and visit her stepfather, a German national. However, since the German authorities rejected her request, Ms Demirkan attacked the decision arguing that on the basis of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EU–Turkey Association Agreement she was entitled to enter Germany without a Visa because at the time of the conclusion of the Additional Protocol -1970- Turkish nationals did not need a Visa to enter Germany as tourists. On the basis of Ms Demirkan’s claim, the referring court in Berlin addressed two questions to the CJEU. First, it asked whether article 41(1) of the Additional protocol containing the ‘stand-still’ clause on restrictions related to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services included the passive reception of services. Secondly, the referring court asked the CJEU whether a tourist traveling to visit family could be considered as a passive recipient of services when the purpose of traveling is personal and not economical. Advocate General Villalon in his Opinion delivered in April 2013, and commented on here, argued that the answer should be negative. In his Opinion the AG argued that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol at the centre of the controversy between Ms Demirkan and Germany should be interpreted in the light of the circumstances and objectives enshrined in the Association Agreement at the time of its conclusion, i.e. 1963, a time in which, also internally, the EU legal system only recognised the active freedom to provide services and not the passive form. Without fully adhering to the ratio decidendi of the AG, the CJEU reached the same conclusion and held that “[t]he notion of ‘freedom to provide services’ in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 must be interpreted as not encompassing freedom for Turkish nationals who are the recipients of services to visit a Member State in order to obtain services”. As the AG Opinion was already the object of another post, this commentary will essentially focus on the CJEU decision.
Continue on the original post here:
http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1994&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=case-c-22111-leyla-demirkan-introducing-regressive-interpretation-for-association-agreements&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
In verband met geldwolven die denken geld te kunnen claimen op krantenartikelen die op een blog als deze worden geplaatst maar na meestal een dag voor de krantenlezers aan leeswaardigheid hebben ingeboet terwijl wij vreemdelingenrecht specialisten ze soms wel nog jaren gebruiken om er een kopie van te maken voor een zaak ga ik over tot het plaatsen van alleen het eerste stukje. Ja ik weet het: de kans dat u doorklikt is geringer dan wanneer het hele artikel hier staat en een kopie van het orgineel maken handig kan zijn voor uw zaak. Wilt u zelf wat overnemen van dit weblog. Dat mag. Zet er alleen even een link bij naar het desbetreffende artikel zodat mensen niet alleen dat wat u knipt en plakt kunnen lezen maar dat ook kunnen doen in de context.
Reacties