# C_2008008EN.01000801.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2007 — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

(Case C-484/07)

(2008/C 8/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fatma Pehlivan

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1a. | Must the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Association Decision 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that that article is applicable if a family member has actually cohabited with a Turkish worker for three years without the right of residence of that family member being challenged by the competent national authorities during those three years? |
| --- | --- |

1a.

Must the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Association Decision 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that that article is applicable if a family member has actually cohabited with a Turkish worker for three years without the right of residence of that family member being challenged by the competent national authorities during those three years?

| 1b. | Does the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Association Decision 1/80 prevent a Member State from stipulating during those three years that, if the family member who has been admitted marries, no rights are further acquired under that provision, even if the family member continues to live with the Turkish worker? |
| --- | --- |

1b.

Does the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Association Decision 1/80 prevent a Member State from stipulating during those three years that, if the family member who has been admitted marries, no rights are further acquired under that provision, even if the family member continues to live with the Turkish worker?

| 2. | Does the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 or any other provision or principle of European law prevent the competent national authorities from challenging the right of residence of the foreign national concerned with retroactive effect after that period of three years under national rules determining whether that person is a family member and/or was legally resident during those three years? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 or any other provision or principle of European law prevent the competent national authorities from challenging the right of residence of the foreign national concerned with retroactive effect after that period of three years under national rules determining whether that person is a family member and/or was legally resident during those three years?

| 3a. | Is it of any relevance to the answers to the above questions whether or not the foreign national intentionally withholds information which is relevant to his right of residence under national legislation? If so, in what way? |
| --- | --- |

3a.

Is it of any relevance to the answers to the above questions whether or not the foreign national intentionally withholds information which is relevant to his right of residence under national legislation? If so, in what way?

| 3b. | Does it make any difference in this context whether that information becomes known in the aforementioned period of three years or only after those three years have elapsed, bearing in mind that, after that information has become known, the competent national authorities possibly need to undertake (further) investigations before reaching their decision? If so, in what way? |
| --- | --- |

3b.

Does it make any difference in this context whether that information becomes known in the aforementioned period of three years or only after those three years have elapsed, bearing in mind that, after that information has become known, the competent national authorities possibly need to undertake (further) investigations before reaching their decision? If so, in what way?

---