# C_2005106EN.01001702.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of 25 January 2005 in the proceedings between Mohamed Gattoussi and the Municipality of Rüsselsheim

(Case C-97/05)

(2005/C 106/33)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Darmstadt Administrative Court) (Germany) of 25 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 23 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Mohamed Gattoussi and the Municipality of Rüsselsheim on the following questions:

| 1. | Does Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) have any effect on entitlement to remain?
  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) have any effect on entitlement to remain?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | Can it be inferred from the prohibition of discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia that the position in respect of entitlement to remain precludes any time limitation on entitlement to remain where a Tunisian citizen holds a work permit of indefinite duration, is actually in employment and at the time of the decision under the law concerning aliens has temporary entitlement to remain?
  If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it be inferred from the prohibition of discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia that the position in respect of entitlement to remain precludes any time limitation on entitlement to remain where a Tunisian citizen holds a work permit of indefinite duration, is actually in employment and at the time of the decision under the law concerning aliens has temporary entitlement to remain?

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

| 3. | For the purposes of determining the position in respect of entitlement to remain in the light of the prohibition on discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia, can account be taken of the position subsequent to the issue of a decision under the law on aliens setting a time-limit on entitlement to remain?
  If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of determining the position in respect of entitlement to remain in the light of the prohibition on discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia, can account be taken of the position subsequent to the issue of a decision under the law on aliens setting a time-limit on entitlement to remain?

If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

| 4. | Is it necessary to follow the principles developed as regards Article 39(3) EC when applying the proviso in respect of grounds relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it necessary to follow the principles developed as regards Article 39(3) EC when applying the proviso in respect of grounds relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest?

---