# C_2017318EN.01000201.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Nefiye Yön v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

(Case C-123/17)

(2017/C 318/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nefiye Yön

Applicant:

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Has the standstill clause laid down in Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 of the Association Council been completely superseded by the standstill clause laid down in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council, or is the lawfulness of new restrictions on the free movement of workers, which were introduced between the entry into force of Decision No 2/76 and the time when Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 became applicable, to continue to be assessed pursuant to Article 7 of Decision No 2/76? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the standstill clause laid down in Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 of the Association Council been completely superseded by the standstill clause laid down in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council, or is the lawfulness of new restrictions on the free movement of workers, which were introduced between the entry into force of Decision No 2/76 and the time when Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 became applicable, to continue to be assessed pursuant to Article 7 of Decision No 2/76?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is that Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 was not completely replaced: is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be fully applied also to the application of Article 7 of Decision No 2/76, with the result that Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 also covers on that basis a national provision, introduced with effect from 5 October 1980, under which the ability of the spouse of a Turkish worker to join that worker for the purpose of family reunification is made dependent on a national visa being issued? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is that Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 was not completely replaced: is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be fully applied also to the application of Article 7 of Decision No 2/76, with the result that Article 7 of Decision No 2/76 also covers on that basis a national provision, introduced with effect from 5 October 1980, under which the ability of the spouse of a Turkish worker to join that worker for the purpose of family reunification is made dependent on a national visa being issued?

| 3. | Is the introduction of such a national provision justified on the basis of an overriding reason in the public interest, in particular the objective of effective immigration control and the management of migration flows, where the particular circumstances of the individual case are taken into account through the operation of a hardship clause? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the introduction of such a national provision justified on the basis of an overriding reason in the public interest, in particular the objective of effective immigration control and the management of migration flows, where the particular circumstances of the individual case are taken into account through the operation of a hardship clause?

---