# C_2016016EN.01001501.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Sidika Ucar v Land Berlin

(Case C-508/15)

(2016/C 016/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sidika Ucar

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Berlin

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing application of that provision are also met in the case where the three years of legal residence of the member of the family of the Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force were preceded by a period in which the principal person entitled, after having been joined by the family member authorised to do so in accordance with that provision, was no longer duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing application of that provision are also met in the case where the three years of legal residence of the member of the family of the Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force were preceded by a period in which the principal person entitled, after having been joined by the family member authorised to do so in accordance with that provision, was no longer duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that Member State?

| 2. | Is the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that the extension of a residence permit is to be regarded as constituting the authorisation specified in that provision to join a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force in the case where the family member concerned has lived continuously, since being authorised to join the Turkish worker within the meaning of that provision, together with that person but the latter, following a period of temporary absence therefrom, is duly registered as belonging afresh to the labour force of the Member State only at the date on which the residence permit is extended? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that the extension of a residence permit is to be regarded as constituting the authorisation specified in that provision to join a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force in the case where the family member concerned has lived continuously, since being authorised to join the Turkish worker within the meaning of that provision, together with that person but the latter, following a period of temporary absence therefrom, is duly registered as belonging afresh to the labour force of the Member State only at the date on which the residence permit is extended?

---