# C_2005182EN.01000501.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-136/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (1)

1

(Free movement of persons - Public policy - Directive 64/221/EEC - Articles 8 and 9 - Refusal of residence permit and deportation order on criminal grounds - Appeal only on the legality of the measure ending the right of residence of the claimant - Appeal having no suspensory effect - Right of the claimant to submit observations on appropriateness before a body liable to give an opinion - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Free movement of workers - Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)

(2005/C 182/09)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-136/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria), made by decision of 18 March 2003, received at the Court on 26 March 2003, in the proceedings Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg — the Court (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Georg Dörr

Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten

Ibrahim Ünal

Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg

| 1. | Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which appeals brought against a decision to expel a national of another Member State from the territory of that first Member State have no suspensory effect and, at the time of examination of such appeal, the decision to expel can be the subject only of an assessment as to its legality, inasmuch as no competent authority within the meaning of that provision has been established. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which appeals brought against a decision to expel a national of another Member State from the territory of that first Member State have no suspensory effect and, at the time of examination of such appeal, the decision to expel can be the subject only of an assessment as to its legality, inasmuch as no competent authority within the meaning of that provision has been established.

| 2. | The procedural guarantees set out in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221 apply to Turkish nationals whose legal status is defined by Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The procedural guarantees set out in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221 apply to Turkish nationals whose legal status is defined by Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 7.6.2003.

1

---