Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:228
Date: 2010-04-29
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Association Agreement;Right of establishment;External relations;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers;Anti-discrimination
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for persons (Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 41(1); Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 13) 2. International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 9; Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 41(1); Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Arts 10(1) and 13) 1. Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council precludes the introduction into the law of a Member State, from the date on which Decision No 1/80 enters into force in that Member State, of any new restrictions on the exercise of the free movement of workers, including those relating to the substantive and/or procedural conditions governing the first admission to the territory of that Member State of Turkish nationals intending to exercise that freedom. Consequently, the standstill rules laid down in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 are applicable, from the entry into force of those provisions, to all the charges imposed on Turkish nationals for the issue of residence permits concerning a first admission to the territory of that Member State or for the extension of such a permit. (see paras 49-50) 2. By introducing and maintaining a system for the issue of residence permits providing for charges disproportionate in relation to those imposed on nationals of Member States for the issue of similar documents, and by applying that system to Turkish nationals who have a right of residence in a Member State on the basis of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, the Additional Protocol to that Association Agreement or Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of the Association Agreement, Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Articles 10(1) and 13 of Decision No 1/80. It is not impossible that charges applicable to Turkish nationals, slightly higher than those claimed from citizens of the Union for the issue of similar documents, may, in certain specific instances, be considered proportionate. However, when the amounts of the contested charges vary within a range in which the lowest amount is more than two-thirds higher than that of the charges applied to citizens of the Union for the issue of similar documents, such a difference cannot be regarded as minimal and, consequently, the view must be taken that the contested charges are disproportionate in their entirety. By applying to Turkish nationals charges of a disproportionate amount for obtaining a residence permit or the extension of one in comparison with the charges applied to citizens of the Union for similar documents, a Member State, by so doing, imposes charges of a discriminatory nature. To the extent to which those charges are applied to Turkish workers or members of their family, they introduce a discriminatory condition of work contrary to Article 10 of Decision No 1/80. In so far as those charges are applied to Turkish nationals wishing to avail themselves of freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services pursuant to the Association Agreement, or to members of their family, they are contrary to the general rule of non‑discrimination laid down in Article 9 of the Association Agreement. (see paras 74-76)