# C_2006212EN.01001002.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and T. Sahin — against the judgment of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage in Case AWB 04/45792

(Case C-242/06)

(2006/C 212/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State, Netherlands

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, T. Sahin

Appellants:

Questions referred

| 1(a). | In the light of paragraphs 81 and 84 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others [2003] ECR I-12301, is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 concerning the development of the Association to be construed as meaning that an alien, a Turkish national, who has complied with the rules for first admission and residence in the country and from 14 December 2000 to 2 October 2002 was legally employed by various employers, but failed to request in due time the extension of the period of validity of his residence permit, as a result of which after the expiry of the permit and at the time of the application for its extension, under national law, he was neither legally resident nor entitled to work in the country, can rely on that provision? |
| --- | --- |

1(a).

In the light of paragraphs 81 and 84 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others [2003] ECR I-12301, is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 concerning the development of the Association to be construed as meaning that an alien, a Turkish national, who has complied with the rules for first admission and residence in the country and from 14 December 2000 to 2 October 2002 was legally employed by various employers, but failed to request in due time the extension of the period of validity of his residence permit, as a result of which after the expiry of the permit and at the time of the application for its extension, under national law, he was neither legally resident nor entitled to work in the country, can rely on that provision?

Abatay and Others

| 1(b). | Is the reply to Question 1(a) affected by the fact that an application for extension not lodged by an alien in due time which is received within six months of the expiry of the period of validity of the residence permit, although under national law this application is treated as an application for the grant of a first residence permit, is examined in the light of the requirements laid down for authorisation of continued residence and the alien is allowed to await the decision on the application in the country? |
| --- | --- |

1(b).

Is the reply to Question 1(a) affected by the fact that an application for extension not lodged by an alien in due time which is received within six months of the expiry of the period of validity of the residence permit, although under national law this application is treated as an application for the grant of a first residence permit, is examined in the light of the requirements laid down for authorisation of continued residence and the alien is allowed to await the decision on the application in the country?

| 2(a). | Is the word ‘restriction’ in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be understood to include the requirement upon an alien, a Turkish national, to whom Decision No 1/80 applies, to pay administrative charges in connection with the processing of an application for the extension of the period of validity of a residence permit, failing which payment his application will not be considered, in accordance with Article 24(2) of the Vw 2000? |
| --- | --- |

2(a).

Is the word ‘restriction’ in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be understood to include the requirement upon an alien, a Turkish national, to whom Decision No 1/80 applies, to pay administrative charges in connection with the processing of an application for the extension of the period of validity of a residence permit, failing which payment his application will not be considered, in accordance with Article 24(2) of the Vw 2000?

| 2(b). | Is the reply to question 2(a) different if the amount of the charges for processing the application does not exceed the costs? |
| --- | --- |

2(b).

Is the reply to question 2(a) different if the amount of the charges for processing the application does not exceed the costs?

| 3. | Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, which also serves to implement the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (1), read in conjunction with Article 59 of that Protocol, be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the administrative charges (EUR 169.00 for the alien at the relevant time) for Turkish nationals who fall within the scope of Decision No 1/80, payable in connection with the processing of an application for the grant or extension of a residence permit, may not exceed the amount of the charge (EUR 30.00) that can be levied on nationals of the European Community for the processing of an application for examination in the light of Community law and the issue of the corresponding residence document (see Article 9(1) of Directive 68/360/EEC (2) and Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (3))? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, which also serves to implement the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (1), read in conjunction with Article 59 of that Protocol, be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the administrative charges (EUR 169.00 for the alien at the relevant time) for Turkish nationals who fall within the scope of Decision No 1/80, payable in connection with the processing of an application for the grant or extension of a residence permit, may not exceed the amount of the charge (EUR 30.00) that can be levied on nationals of the European Community for the processing of an application for examination in the light of Community law and the issue of the corresponding residence document (see Article 9(1) of Directive 68/360/EEC (2) and Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (3))?

1

2

3

---

(1)  JO 1972 L 293, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, EnglishSpecial Edition 1968(II), p. 485).

2

(3)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory ofthe Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

3

---