# C_2011232EN.01000401.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-484/07) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Family reunification - First indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Child of a Turkish worker who lived together with that worker for more than three years, but married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that provision - National law calling into question, on that ground, the residence permit of the person concerned)

(2011/C 232/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fatma Pehlivan

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond — Interpretation of the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Child of a Turkish worker who resided with that worker for at least three years but who married a Turkish national in Turkey during that period without informing the competent authorities

Operative part of the judgment

The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | that provision precludes legislation of a Member State under which a family member properly authorised to join a Turkish migrant worker who is already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that State loses the enjoyment of the rights based on family reunification under that provision for the reason only that, having attained majority, he or she gets married, even where he or she continues to live with that worker during the first three years of his or her residence in the host Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

that provision precludes legislation of a Member State under which a family member properly authorised to join a Turkish migrant worker who is already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that State loses the enjoyment of the rights based on family reunification under that provision for the reason only that, having attained majority, he or she gets married, even where he or she continues to live with that worker during the first three years of his or her residence in the host Member State;

| — | a Turkish national who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within that provision may validly claim a right of residence in the host Member State on the basis thereof, notwithstanding the fact that he or she got married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, in the case where, during the whole of that period, he or she actually lived under the same roof as the Turkish migrant worker through whom he or she was admitted to the territory of that State on the ground of family reunification. |
| --- | --- |

—

a Turkish national who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within that provision may validly claim a right of residence in the host Member State on the basis thereof, notwithstanding the fact that he or she got married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, in the case where, during the whole of that period, he or she actually lived under the same roof as the Turkish migrant worker through whom he or she was admitted to the territory of that State on the ground of family reunification.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

---