Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:224
Date: 2000-05-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Free movement of workers
Concepts: Effects. Scope and limits;The various agreements concluded by the Community
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. International agreements — Agreements concluded by the Community — Direct 
effect— Conditions— Article 13 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and 
Article 41(2) of the Additional Protocol not directly effective— Direct effect of 
Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol 
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 13; Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey 
Association Agreement, Art. 41(1) and (2)) 
I - 2927 
SUMMARY — CASE C-37/98 
2. International agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of 
movement for persons —• Freedom of establishment — Standstill rule in Article 41 (1) 
of the Additional Protocol —• Scope •—• Prohibition on Member States introducing new 
restrictions on the establishment, and correspondingly the residence, of Turkish 
workers on national territory 
(Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 41(1)) 
1. A provision in an agreement concluded 
by the Community with non-member 
countries must be regarded as being 
directly applicable when, having regard 
to its wording and to the purpose and 
nature of the agreement itself, the 
provision contains a clear and precise 
obligation which is not subject, in its 
implementation or effects, to the adop­
tion of any subsequent measure. 
Although those conditions are not 
fulfilled either by Article 13 of the 
Agreement establishing an Association 
between the EEC and Turkey, which 
does no more than lay down in general 
terms, with reference to the corre­
sponding provisions of the Treaty, the 
principle of eliminating restrictions on 
freedom of establishment between the 
contracting parties, and does not itself 
establish precise rules for the purposes 
of attaining that objective, or by Arti­
cle 41(2) of the Additional Protocol, no 
measures having been adopted under 
that latter provision for the concrete 
implementation of the general principle 
that obstacles to the right of establish­
ment between the contracting parties 
are to be gradually abolished, that does 
not apply to Article 41(1) of the Addi­
tional Protocol, which lays down, 
clearly, precisely and unconditionally, 
an unequivocal 'standstill' clause, pro­
hibiting the contracting parties from 
introducing new restrictions on the 
freedom of establishment as from the 
date of entry into force of the Addi­
tional Protocol. That provision lays 
down a precise and unconditional 
principle that is sufficiently operational 
to be applied by a national court and 
therefore capable of governing the legal 
position of individuals. The direct 
effect which must therefore be accor­
ded to that provision implies that the 
individuals to which it applies have the 
right to rely on it before the courts of 
Member States. 
(see paras 39, 42, 44, 46, 54, 71 and 
operative part) 
2. The principles established in the con­
text of the interpretation of the provi­
sions of the EEC-Turkey Association 
Agreement for the progressive achieve­
ment of free movement of Turkish 
workers in the Community, must also 
apply, by analogy, in the context of the 
provisions of that Association Agree­
ment concerning the right of establish­
ment. It follows that the 'standstill' 
clause in Article 41(1) of the Addi­
tional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey 
I - 2928 
SAVAS 
Agreement is not in itself capable of 
conferring upon a Turkish national the 
benefit of the right of establishment 
and the right of residence which is its 
corollary. A Turkish national's first 
admission to the territory of a Member 
State is therefore governed exclusively 
by that State's own domestic law, and 
the person concerned may claim cer­
tain rights under Community law in 
relation to holding employment or 
exercising self-employed activity, and, 
correlatively, in relation to residence, 
only in so far as his position in the 
Member State concerned is regular. 
In consequence, Article 41(1) of the 
Additional Protocol is not in itself 
capable of conferring upon a Turkish 
national a right of establishment and, 
as a corollary, a right of residence in 
the Member State in whose territory he 
has remained and carried on business 
activities as a self-employed person in 
breach of the domestic immigration 
law. That provision does, however, 
prohibit the introduction of new 
national restrictions on the freedom of 
establishment and right of residence of 
Turkish nationals as from the date on 
which that protocol entered into force 
in the host Member State. 
(see paras 63-65, 69, 71 and 
operative part) 
I - 2929