Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2020:847
Date: 2020-10-21
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation C-720/19 — 1 
Case C-720/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
30 September 2019 
Referring court: 
Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 September 2019 
Applicant: 
GR 
Defendant: 
Stadt Duisburg 
  
ORDER 
In the administrative court proceedings 
 
GR, [...] 
applicant, 
[...] 
v 
Stadt Duisburg, [...] 
defendant, 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2019 — CASE C-720/19 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
c o n c e r n i n g the German law relating to foreign nationals (residence 
permit pursuant to Paragraph 4(5) of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (Law on 
residence, ‘AufenthG’)) 
here: order of stay and reference 
the 7th Chamber of the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Administrative Court of 
Düsseldorf) 
made, on 24 September 2019, 
[...] 
the following o r d e r: 
The proceedings are stayed. 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: 
1. Does a family member of a Turkish worker, who is able to derive from 
the latter rights under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision 
No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council (‘Decision No 1/80’), 
lose those rights if he acquires the nationality of the host Member State 
and loses his previous nationality? [Or. 2] 
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Can the family member of 
the Turkish worker in the situation described then continue to rely on 
the rights under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 if he has lost the 
nationality of the host Member State because he has reacquired his 
previous nationality? 
I. 
The applicant, who was born on 1 January 1954, is a Turkish national. On 25 July 
1970 she travelled to join her husband, a Turkish worker employed at Bergbau 
AG Niederrhein in the Federal Republic of Germany, and lived with him as a 
family until he died on 20 August 1998. Her husband became self-employed as of 
March 1990. 
The temporary residence permit issued to her for the first time on 28 January 1971 
for the purposes of family reunification was extended on several occasions and 
issued as a permanent residence permit on 15 October 1996. 
The applicant was naturalised as a German citizen on 2 February 2001 and 
submitted her certificate of release from Turkish nationality on 15 February 2001. 
With effect from 20 July 2001, she voluntarily reacquired Turkish nationality and 
therefore lost German nationality by operation of law. The loss of German 
STADT DUISBURG 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
nationality remained unacknowledged for a number of years and was established 
by the defendant by final decision of 8 November 2010. 
On application, the defendant issued to the applicant, on 22 February 2011, a 
residence permit pursuant to Paragraph 38 AufenthG (for former German 
citizens), valid until 21 February 2013, which was extended on several occasions. 
By letter from her lawyer of 3 February 2017, the applicant requested that she be 
issued with a long-term residence permit pursuant to Paragraph 4(5) AufenthG, 
requesting, in the alternative, a permit limited to five years. In support of her 
request, it was stated that she had acquired the rights under the first indent of 
Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 on account of having lived together with her 
husband. Furthermore, these rights had not been lost due to her naturalisation on 
2 February 2001. In this respect, she referred to the grounds given by the 
Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) in 
its order of 28 July 2014 — 19 C 13.2517. In relation to Article 7 of Decision 
No 1/80, association law recognised only two reasons for the loss of rights: 
permanently leaving the territory of the Member State and extinguishment due to 
expulsion. Neither was applicable here. 
By letter of 27 March 2017, the defendant stated that rights based on the EEC-
Turkey Association Agreement were not preserved in the event of naturalisation 
in the Federal Republic of Germany and referred to the grounds in the judgment of 
the [Or. 3] Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg (Administrative Court of Freiburg) of 
19 January 2010 — 3 K 2399/08. Irrespective of this, however, an assessment 
would be made as to whether to issue a settlement permit pursuant to Paragraph 9 
AufenthG . 
On 3 April 2017, the applicant asserted that, in her view, the decision of the 
Administrative Court of Freiburg had been rendered obsolete by the case-law 
cited by her and she requested a decision open to appeal. By further written 
submission of 13 April, she withdrew the request to be granted a settlement 
permit. 
Following a hearing, the defendant refused, by the decision of 29 August 2017 
that is the subject matter of the dispute, to issue a residence permit for the 
applicant pursuant to Paragraph 4(5) AufenthG. According to the defendant, the 
question whether rights under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 had been conferred 
on her on the basis of her long-term family relationship with her husband (who 
died in 1998), as a family member of a Turkish worker, could remain open. As she 
had acquired German nationality on 2 February 2001, this provision could no 
longer apply to her. Account had to be taken of the purpose of the provision, 
which served to integrate family members of Turkish workers into the Member 
State. However, this purpose had been achieved to the greatest extent possible by 
naturalisation. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2019 — CASE C-720/19 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
It was not until 20 July 2001 that she once again became a person to whom 
Decision No 1/80 was addressed, as a result of having acquired Turkish 
nationality. From that point onwards, however, no rights whatsoever were 
conferred on her under that legislation. 
The applicant brought an action on 4 November 2017, by which she pursues her 
request. [...] 
The applicant requests 
that the decision of 29 August 2017 be annulled and the defendant also 
be obliged to issue her with a long-term residence permit pursuant to 
Paragraph 4(5) AufenthG. 
The defendant requests 
that the action be dismissed 
and, as its grounds, refers to the reasons given in the contested decision. It 
assumes, in line with the prevailing case-law, that rights under Article 7 of 
Decision No 1/80 were not restored upon the reacquisition of Turkish nationality. 
II. 
The case must be stayed. Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, a preliminary ruling of 
the Court of Justice of the European Union must be obtained on the questions set 
out in the operative part of this order. These questions concern the interpretation 
of Decision No 1/80 of the [Or. 4] Association Council of 19 September 1980 on 
the development of the Association. Since this concerns the interpretation of 
European Union law, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction. 
1. The legal assessment of the claim asserted by the applicant, that the 
defendant should be obliged to issue her with a residence permit pursuant to 
Paragraph 4(5) AufenthG and that its decision of 29 August 2017 should be 
annulled, is based on the current legal situation. 
The following provisions of national law form the legal framework of the dispute 
that is relevant to the dispute: 
Paragraph 4 AufenthG 
(…) 
(5) A foreign national who has a right of residence pursuant to the EEC-Turkey 
Association Agreement shall be obliged to prove the existence of that right 
through the possession of a residence permit, if he does not possess a settlement 
permit or an EU long-term residence permit. The residence permit shall be issued 
on request. 
STADT DUISBURG 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
Paragraph 43 of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz für das Land Nordrhein-
Westfalen (Law on administrative proceedings for the Land of North Rhine-
Westphalia, ‘the VwVfG NRW’) 
(…) 
(2) An administrative act shall remain effective for so long as, and to the extent 
that, it has not been withdrawn, revoked or otherwise annulled, or ceased to be 
applicable due to the passage of time or otherwise ceased to be applicable. 
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling are material to the decision to be 
given and require clarification by the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
a) The effect of the applicant’s naturalisation as a German citizen on 
2 February 2001 on her rights of residence acquired up until that point is of 
decisive significance for the legal assessment of the claim asserted by the 
applicant. The hearing having been held, it is established that, at that point in time, 
the applicant had acquired rights to work and to stay pursuant to the second indent 
of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80. Moreover, she was in 
possession of a permanent residence permit. 
aa) Under national law, naturalisation in Germany has the consequence that the 
residence permits granted to her by a decision of the authorities (administrative 
act) ceased to have effect. According to consistent case-law [Or. 5] 
[...], 
this effect is based on the last alternative of Paragraph 43(2) VwVfG NRW (or its 
equivalent in the law of other Länder and in Federal law). As a result of 
naturalisation, the residence permit would lose its regulatory effect and expire, 
meaning that the administrative act would ‘otherwise’ cease to be applicable. 
From the perspective of the law relating to foreign nationals, the regulatory 
purpose was lost as a result of naturalisation because the person concerned was no 
longer a foreign national and therefore did not require a residence permit. 
Furthermore, a residence permit that had become obsolete in this way could not be 
restored. 
bb) The first question referred seeks to ascertain whether a similar effect of 
naturalisation, 
whether it be extinguishment, ceasing to be applicable or being of no effect, 
may arise in respect of rights of residence pursuant to the first paragraph of 
Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 that have been acquired by operation of law. 
According to established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 
the existence of the rights arising from Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 9. 2019 — CASE C-720/19 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
independent of the continuing existence of the conditions for access to those 
rights. 
Judgments of 16 March 2000, C-329/97, Ergat, paragraphs 42/44; and of 
7 July 2005, C-373/03, Aydinli, paragraph 25. 
In addition, family members can lose those rights again in only two cases: 
either they leave the host Member State without legitimate reason for a significant 
length of time or, on account of their personal conduct, they constitute a genuine, 
serious and current threat to public security, public policy or public health, in 
accordance with Article 14 of Decision No 1/80. 
CJEU, judgments of 22 December 2010, C-303/08, Bozkurt, paragraph 42; 
of 16 February 2006, C-502/04, Torun, paragraph 25; of 11 November 2004, 
C-467/02, Cetinkaya, paragraph 36; and of 7 July 2005, C-373/03, Aydinli, 
paragraph 27. 
The two aforementioned reasons for losing rights are also exhaustive. 
CJEU, judgments of 22 December 2010, C-303/08, Bozkurt, paragraph 43, 
and of 18 December 2008, C- 337/07, Altun, paragraph 63. 
It is indisputable that these conditions have not been met in the case of the 
applicant. 
In addition, the Court has also ruled that the beneficiary family member of the 
Turkish worker does not have to be a Turkish national, [Or. 6] 
CJEU, judgment of 19 July 2012, C-451/11, [...] [paragraph 65 and 
operative part of the judgment] 
and his legal status does not change even if the principal person entitled acquires 
not only Turkish nationality but also that of the host Member State. 
CJEU, judgment of 29 March 2012, C-7/10 and C-9/10 [...], paragraph 41 
(Kahveci and Inan). 
The question referred is a matter of dispute in the national case-law: 
By judgment of 19 January 2010 (3 K 2399/08) [...] the Administrative Court of 
Freiburg ruled that rights arising from Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 are 
extinguished as a result of naturalisation. The decisive factor here was that both 
the creation and continuing existence of those rights was conceivable only on 
condition that the person concerned was a foreign national. Upon naturalisation, 
the beneficiary would require neither a right to work under association law nor a 
right to stay. The purpose of association rights — first, to improve the 
employment situation of Turkish workers and, secondly, to integrate their family 
members into the Member State — was achieved by naturalisation. 
STADT DUISBURG 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
By contrast, by order of 28 July 2014 (19 C 13.2517) [...], the Bavarian Higher 
Administrative Court took the view that there is a strong argument that the 
association entitlement of a Turkish national continued to exist even if he had 
temporarily been a German national. In its judgment of 29 March 2012 (see 
above), the Court of Justice stated that Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 was also part 
of the system of gradually integrating Turkish nationals into the host Member 
State and that naturalisation in the host Member State constituted an important 
step towards integration, such that it could not undermine the association right. 
This argument also held true here. It was therefore doubtful whether a host State 
which required the renunciation of Turkish nationality for naturalisation (that 
nationality being the basis on which the association right arose) could continue to 
regard the association right as having ceased to exist after another change of 
nationality, if even a host State which did not require the renunciation of Turkish 
nationality and thereby facilitated naturalisation could not regard the association 
right as having ceased to exist. 
The referring chamber is inclined to assume that, owing to the differences 
between integration models under national law and EU law, a previously acquired 
right under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 continues to exist even after 
naturalisation in the host Member State. 
b) The second question referred seeks to have the first answered to the effect 
that not having the nationality of the host Member State would be a sine qua non 
for the [Or. 7] existence of the rights under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80. The 
loss of the acquired nationality of the host Member State could then have the 
effect that the association right is restored. 
[...] 
[...] [Signatures, formalities regarding copies]