# C_2009102EN.01001001.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2009 — Hava Genc v Land Berlin

(Case C-14/09)

2009/C 102/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hava Genc

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Berlin

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a Turkish national who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and who has, for an extended period for and under the instruction of another, performed services of a certain economic value in return for which he receives remuneration a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, even if the time spent in that activity amounts to only approximately 14% of the collectively agreed working time of a full-time worker (in the present case, 5.5 hours as against a 39-hour working week) and the income earned from that activity by itself covers only approximately 25% of the amount determined under the national law of the Member State to be necessary for subsistence (in the present case, approximately EUR 175 as against approximately EUR 715)?
  If the answer to the first question is affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a Turkish national who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and who has, for an extended period for and under the instruction of another, performed services of a certain economic value in return for which he receives remuneration a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, even if the time spent in that activity amounts to only approximately 14% of the collectively agreed working time of a full-time worker (in the present case, 5.5 hours as against a 39-hour working week) and the income earned from that activity by itself covers only approximately 25% of the amount determined under the national law of the Member State to be necessary for subsistence (in the present case, approximately EUR 175 as against approximately EUR 715)?

If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

| 2. | Can a Turkish national then also rely on the freedom of movement under the EEC/Turkey Association as a worker within the terms of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 if the purpose of the stay for which he entered the country is no longer applicable (in the present case, joining a spouse for the purpose of family reunification), if there are no other interests for remaining in the contracting State which merit protection, and if the possibility of continuing to engage in a minimal activity in the contracting State cannot be regarded as constituting a ground for remaining there, in particular because no serious efforts have been made by that Turkish national to achieve stable economic integration without reliance on social benefits to ensure the means of subsistence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a Turkish national then also rely on the freedom of movement under the EEC/Turkey Association as a worker within the terms of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 if the purpose of the stay for which he entered the country is no longer applicable (in the present case, joining a spouse for the purpose of family reunification), if there are no other interests for remaining in the contracting State which merit protection, and if the possibility of continuing to engage in a minimal activity in the contracting State cannot be regarded as constituting a ground for remaining there, in particular because no serious efforts have been made by that Turkish national to achieve stable economic integration without reliance on social benefits to ensure the means of subsistence?

---