Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2024:572
Date: 2024-07-04
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Association Agreement;General provisions;External relations;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary C-375/23 – 1 
Case C-375/23 [Meislev] 1 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
13 June 2023 
Referring court:  
Højesteret (Denmark) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
6 June 2023 
Appellant: 
EN 
Respondent:  
Udlændingenævnet 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns whether the refusal of a permanent 
residence permit which the Udlændingenævnet (Immigration Appeals Board, 
Denmark) notified to the appellant, EN, on 18 July 2018, is compatible with the 
standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. The parties agree that, at the 
time the decision refusing a permanent residence permit was issued, EN had the 
status of a Turkish worker residing lawfully in Denmark and that he could 
therefore derive independent rights from the standstill clause 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark) has decided, pursuant to Article 267 
TFEU, to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European 
Union on the interpretation of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision 
No 1/80. 
 
1 The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-375/23 
 
2  
The first question raised by this case is whether making the conditions under 
which a Turkish worker may obtain a permanent residence permit in a Member 
State more onerous constitutes a new restriction covered by the standstill clause in 
Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, 
the question then arises whether the more onerous conditions relating to the length 
of the prior period during which a worker must have resided and worked lawfully 
in the Member State (that is to say more onerous temporal conditions) can be 
regarded as justified by an overriding reason in the general interest and 
proportionate – that is to say, whether those conditions are appropriate for 
attaining the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to 
attain it. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do provisions of national law laying down conditions for obtaining a 
permanent residence permit in a Member State fall within the scope of the 
standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the 
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established 
by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic 
Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic 
of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, 
of the other part, which was concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the 
Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963? 
2. If they do, can making the temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent 
residence permit for a Member State more onerous (that is to say, making the 
minimum requirements laid down as regards the length of a foreign national’s 
prior residence and employment in the Member State more onerous) be regarded 
as appropriate for facilitating the successful integration of third-country nationals? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 45(3)(d) 
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 
2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and 
reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation 
(EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 
72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 
93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance); Articles 16 and 28 
Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, 
adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an 
Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 
12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the 
MEISLEV 
 
3 
Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part (Decision 
No 1/80) (OJ); Articles 6 and 13 
Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 on the conclusion of the 
Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic 
Community and Turkey (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 1) 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union: 
Judgment of 22 December 2022, Case C-279/21, X (EU:C:2022:1019, 
paragraphs 30 to 46) 
Judgment of 10 July 2019, Case C-89/18, A (EU:C:2019:580, paragraphs 31 to 34, 
39, 40, and 45 to 47) 
Judgment of 9 December 2010, Joined Cases C-300/09 and C-301/09, Toprak and 
Oguz (EU:C:2010:756, paragraph 44) 
Judgment of 6 June 1995, Case C-434/93, Bozkurt (EU:C:1995:168, 
paragraphs 19 to 20 and 40) 
Judgment of 8 December 2011, Case C-371/08, Ziebell (EU:C:2011:809, 
paragraphs 66, and 68 to 69) 
Judgment of 7 October 2010, Case C-162/09, Lassal (EU:C:2010:592, 
paragraphs 32 and 37) 
Judgment of 10 July 2014, Case C-138/13, Dogan (EU:C:2014:2066, 
paragraphs 38 to 39) 
Judgment of 12 April 2016, Case C-561/14, Genc (EU:C:2016:247, paragraphs 51 
to 52, 56, and 66 to 67) 
Judgment of 29 March 2017, Case C-652/15, Tekdemir (EU:C:2017:239, 
paragraph 53) 
Judgment of 7 August 2018, Case C-123/17, Yön (EU:C:2018:632, paragraph 72) 
Judgment of 2 September 2021, Case C-379/20, B (EU:C:2021:660, 
paragraphs 19 to 35) 
Judgment of 16 January 2014, Case C-378/12, Onuekwere (ECLI:EU:C:2014:13, 
paragraphs 24 and 25) 
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 
Judgment of 23 June 2008, Case 1639/03, Maslov v. Austria 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-375/23 
 
4  
Provisions of national law relied on 
The conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit that were in force on 
1 December 1980 when the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 
entered into force in Denmark were laid down in bekendtgørelse nr. 196 af 23. 
maj 1980 (Decree No 196 of 23 May 1980), adopted pursuant to the 
udlændingelov (Danish Law on foreign nationals) in force at that time (see 
lovbekendtgørelse nr. 344 af 22. juni 1973 (Consolidated Law No 344 of 22 June 
1973)). 
The contested decision refusing a permanent residence permit was made pursuant 
to Paragraph 11(3) to (5) of the Law on foreign nationals, as it was worded, at the 
time of the decision, in lovbekendtgørelse nr. 412 af 9. maj 2016 (Consolidated 
Law No 412 of 9 May 2016), as amended. 
Paragraph 11(3) to (5) and (16) of the Law on foreign nationals of 2016 lays down 
the conditions under which a permanent residence permit can be granted, 
including the condition that a foreign national must have lived lawfully in the 
country for at least six years (subparagraph 3) or at least four years (subparagraph 
5). In addition to lawful residence for at least six years, all foreign nationals must 
fulfil two of the four additional integration-related conditions in order to obtain a 
permanent residence permit. If the basic conditions and all four additional 
integration-relevant conditions are met, a foreign national can obtain a permanent 
residence permit after just four years. 
It is apparent from the travaux préparatoires for Paragraph 11, which was 
introduced by lov nr. 572 af 31. maj 2010 (Law No 572 of 31 May 2010), and by 
which the rules on the granting of permanent residence permits were amended, 
that the amendment aimed at ensuring that there is a clear connection between the 
rules of the Law on foreign nationals on permanent residence permits and the 
integration of foreign nationals. 
As regards the provisions on permanent residence permits, it is apparent from the 
legislative proposal for the subsequent amendment to Paragraph 11 of the Law on 
foreign nationals, which was implemented by lov nr. 572 af 18. juni 2012 (Law 
No 572 of 18 June 2012), inter alia, that the main purpose of the rules on granting 
permanent residence permits must be to stimulate and ensure better integration in 
Denmark. The proposed [and subsequently adopted] amendment meant that the 
residence requirement was changed from four years of residence to five years of 
residence and that the employment requirement was increased from two and a half 
years’ full-time employment out of three years to three years’ full-time 
employment out of five years. The intention of that amendment was to strengthen 
the individual foreign national’s ability to organise his or her integration process 
more flexibly. 
Lastly, it is apparent from the legislative proposal for the amendment of the Law 
on foreign nationals made by lov nr. 102 af 3. februar 2016 (Law No 102 of 
MEISLEV 
 
5 
3 February 2016), inter alia, that it proposed that the possibility of obtaining a 
permanent residence permit should be narrowed as follows: the temporal 
condition relating to lawful residence should be changed to six years and the 
employment requirement should be narrowed to a requirement for ordinary full-
time employment for two and a half years within the last three years. [That 
proposal was adopted.] More specifically, the temporal condition was increased to 
six years’ lawful residence, as a general rule, for all foreign nationals, who must 
also fulfil a number of stricter basic conditions. Those basic conditions concern 
the requirement of good repute and requirements relating to knowledge of Danish 
and employment. In addition, there is an exception to the general temporal rule on 
six years’ lawful residence, so that foreign nationals who have demonstrated a 
particular ability and willingness to integrate into Danish society can obtain a 
permanent residence permit after at least four years’ lawful residence in Denmark. 
A foreign national must be considered to have demonstrated a particular ability 
and willingness to integrate into Danish society if he or she, in addition to meeting 
the basic conditions, fulfils all four additional conditions relating to integration. 
The additional conditions concern criteria relating to integration in the form of 
civic participation, a higher degree of involvement in the labour market, an annual 
taxable income of a certain amount, and particularly good knowledge of Danish. 
The conditions are of equal rank and it is thus for the individual foreign national 
to decide which two of the four conditions her or she can demonstrate to have 
satisfied. 
Overall, the 2016 legislative proposal (see the general comments, paragraphs 1.2. 
and 1.3.) was justified by the large number of refugees coming to Europe during 
that period, and contained a number of proposals for specific tightening of 
conditions in the field of asylum and immigration. 
It is only the more onerous conditions, under the Law of 2016, concerning the 
length of the prior period during which the worker must have been lawfully 
resident and employed, that are relevant to the specific case and not the other 
conditions laid down in Paragraph 11. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 EN was born in Türkiye and is a Turkish citizen. On 24 May 2013, he was granted 
a residence permit in Denmark on the basis of his marriage to a Danish citizen 
living in Denmark. On 27 March 2017, EN submitted an application for a 
permanent residence permit in Denmark to the Udlændingestyrelsen (Immigration 
Office, Denmark). At that time, EN had the status of worker in Denmark and was 
covered by the Association Agreement, including Decision No 1/80. 
2 On 10 November 2017, the Immigration Office refused EN a permanent residence 
permit in Denmark on the grounds that he did not satisfy the condition laid down 
in Paragraph 11 that he must have resided lawfully in Denmark continuously for 
at least six years. The Immigration Office also considered, inter alia, that he did 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-375/23 
 
6  
not fulfil the special conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit after 
just four years of lawful residence in Denmark. 
3 On 14 November 2017, EN appealed the Immigration Office’s decision with the 
respondent, the Udlændingenævnet (Immigration Appeals Board, Denmark). In 
support of his appeal, EN argued, inter alia, that, as a Turkish worker lawfully 
resident in Denmark, he is protected against a worsening of his legal position in 
comparison with the rules which were in force on 1 December 1980. 
4 On 18 July 2018, the Immigration Appeals Board upheld the Immigration Office’s 
decision of 10 November 2017, stating, inter alia, that in order to obtain a 
permanent residence permit EN had to satisfy the conditions laid down in 
Paragraph 11(3)(1) (lawful residence for six years) and Paragraph 11(3)(8) 
(ordinary full-time employment for two and a half years out of the last three) of 
the Law on foreign nationals (as amended in 2016), which he did not. 
5 The parties agree that the conditions relating to prior residence and employment 
laid down in Paragraph 11(3)(1) and (8) of the Law on foreign nationals, in the 
version of Consolidated Law No 412 of 9 May 2016, as subsequently amended, 
that was in force at the time of the decision, were more onerous than the 
conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit that were in force on 
1 December 1980 when the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 
entered into force in Denmark. 
6 On 15 October 2018, EN brought an action before the Københavns Byret 
(Copenhagen District Court, Denmark), seeking annulment of the Immigration 
Appeals Board’s decision, and the case was referred the Østre Landsret (High 
Court of Eastern Denmark) for consideration at first instance. On 2 February 
2022, the High Court of Eastern Denmark gave judgment in the case, granting the 
application brought by the Immigration Appeals Board for the action to be 
dismissed. On 1 March 2022, EN appealed the High Court of Eastern Denmark’s 
judgment to the Supreme Court, claiming that the Immigration Appeals Board’s 
decision of 18 July 2018 should be annulled and the case be referred back for 
reconsideration. 
7 By decision of the Immigration Office of 15 October 2020, EN’s residence permit 
was extended until 15 October 2026. The decision states that the residence permit 
entitles him to work and study in Denmark and is conditional on him having a 
valid passport. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 EN claims that making the temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent 
residence permit in Denmark more onerous constitutes a new restriction on the 
free movement of workers which falls within the scope of the standstill clause in 
Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. New conditions for the grant of a permanent right 
of residence must be regarded as falling within the scope ratione materiae of the 
MEISLEV 
 
7 
standstill clause, if only because Article 45(3)(d) TFEU and the corresponding 
earlier Treaty provisions that were in force when Denmark acceded to the 
European Communities expressly state that freedom of movement for workers 
includes the right to remain in a Member State, under defined conditions, after 
having been employed there. Turkish workers cannot obtain a legal position under 
the standstill clause which they did not already have at the time of the entry into 
force of the standstill clause or which they obtained subsequently [according to 
other rules]. Therefore, Turkish workers cannot invoke a right to remain in a 
Member State after the end of their working life by relying on the implementing 
acts which the European Commission adopted with effect only for EU workers 
and/or EU citizens. However, Turkish workers can derive a right of permanent 
residence in a Member State from the standstill clause, in conjunction with 
Article 45(3)(d) TFEU and the provisions of national law which had already been 
adopted with effect not only for EU workers but also for Turkish workers at the 
time when Decision No 1/80 entered into force in the Member State concerned. 
9 EN goes on to claim that making the temporal conditions for granting a permanent 
residence permit more onerous is not appropriate to meet the requirement relating 
to an overriding reason in the public interest, invoked by the Immigration Appeals 
Board, of ensuring the successful integration of third-country nationals. Stricter 
temporal conditions for the right of permanent residence apply by their very 
nature to Turkish nationals who already are lawfully resident and working in the 
Member State concerned. Making the temporal conditions more onerous is 
therefore merely an expression of the fact that ‘residence for an even longer 
period’ and ‘work for an even longer period’ are required before a Turkish worker 
can obtain the privilege of a permanent residence permit. The length of a Turkish 
worker’s prior residence and employment may serve as a measure of the degree of 
integration which he or she has achieved at a given point in time. However, 
temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit cannot serve as a 
means of ensuring successful integration. On the contrary, a permanent residence 
permit promotes social cohesion and creates a feeling of being fully part of the 
society of the host Member State. The objective of promoting and ensuring 
successful integration is therefore best served by granting a permanent residence 
permit as soon as possible. 
10 The Immigration Appeals Board argues that narrowing the possibility of obtaining 
a permanent residence permit by means of the abovementioned residence and 
employment requirements is not covered by the notion of restriction set out in 
Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. That is because, first, the conditions for obtaining 
a permanent residence permit do not concern the conditions of access to 
employment applicable to Turkish workers within the meaning of Article 13 and 
thus do not affect their situation and, second, the right of Turkish workers to 
reside in the Member State under Decision No 1/80 is merely ancillary to the 
performance of lawful employment and cannot be extended to subsequent 
residence in the Member State. In the view of the Immigration Appeals Board, the 
rights of Turkish workers under Decision No 1/80 cannot be compared to the right 
to free movement of EU citizens. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-375/23 
 
8  
11 Even if making the residence and employment requirements that were in force at 
the time more onerous could be considered to constitute a new restriction covered 
by Article 13, the requirements are in any event appropriate to serve the interest of 
successful integration of third-country nationals in Denmark. The residence and 
employment requirements are appropriate to serve both interests, since the 
purpose of the requirements is to ensure that an applicant seeking a permanent 
residence permit in Denmark must, as a general rule, show that he or she is well-
integrated and acts as an active citizen in Danish society, including by having 
been lawfully resident and employed in Denmark for a number of years. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 According to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases Toprak and 
Oguz (paragraph 44), changes in the conditions governing the granting of 
residence permits are covered by Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 ‘in so far as 
those changes affect the situation of Turkish workers’. 
13 In more recent case-law, the Court has instead used wording according to which 
the decisive factor is whether a new national measure within the meaning of 
Article 13 ‘has the object or effect of making the exercise by a Turkish national of 
the freedom of movement for workers on national territory subject to conditions 
that are more restrictive than those which applied at the time when that decision 
entered into force in the territory of that Member State’ (in this respect, see, inter 
alia, paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-279/21, X). 
14 In addition, inter alia in paragraphs 19 and 20 of its judgment in Bozkurt and 
paragraph 66 of its judgment in Ziebell, the Court of Justice held that the 
principles enshrined in Articles 39 EC to 41 EC must be extended, as far as 
possible, to Turkish nationals who enjoy rights under the EEC-Turkey 
Association. 
15 However, at the same time, in paragraph 68 of its judgment in Ziebell the Court of 
Justice also held that such a transposition of the principles underlying the freedom 
of movement under EU law may be justified only by the objective of 
progressively securing freedom of movement for Turkish workers pursued by the 
EEC-Turkey Association, as laid down in Article 12 of the Association 
Agreement, which confirms that the purpose underpinning that association is 
solely economic in nature. It follows, in accordance with paragraph 69 of the 
judgment in Ziebell, that the wider objective of ensuring the exercise by EU 
citizens of the primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the 
territory of the Member States, which (see, inter alia, paragraphs 32 and 37 of the 
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-162/09, Lassal) underlies the 
Residence Directive, does not apply to Decision No 1/80. 
16 The Court of Justice also held in paragraph 40 of its judgment in Bozkurt that, in 
the absence of any specific provision conferring on Turkish workers a right to 
remain in the territory of a Member State after working there, a Turkish national’s 
MEISLEV 
 
9 
right of residence, as implicitly but necessarily guaranteed by Article 6 of 
Decision No 1/80 as a corollary of legal employment, ceases to exist if the person 
concerned becomes totally and permanently incapacitated for work. 
17 However, the Court of Justice does not appear to have had the opportunity to 
assess whether making it more difficult to obtain a permanent residence permit 
constitutes a new restriction covered by the standstill clause in Article 13 of 
Decision No 1/80. 
18 In the light of the foregoing, the Supreme Court asks the Court of Justice to 
determine whether provisions of national law, such as those at issue in the main 
proceedings, which lay down new and more onerous conditions for obtaining a 
permanent residence permit in a Member State, constitute a new restriction falling 
within the scope of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. 
19 If that question is answered in the affirmative, it becomes relevant to determine 
whether the restriction is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, is 
suitable to achieve the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what 
is necessary in order to attain it (see, inter alia, judgment of the Court of Justice in 
Case C-279/21, X, paragraph 35). 
20 As regards the issue of how the proportionality of a national rule constituting a 
new restriction is to be assessed in the context of the standstill clause in Article 13 
of Decision No 1/80, there is extensive case-law of the Court of Justice (see, inter 
alia, the judgments in Dogan, paragraphs 38 to 39, in Genc, paragraphs 51 to 52 
and 66 to 67, in Tekdemir, paragraph 53, in Yön, paragraph 72, in Case C-89/18, 
A, paragraphs 31 and 34 and 45 to 47, in Case C-379/20, B, paragraphs 19 to 35, 
and, most recently, in Case C-279/21, X, paragraphs 30 to 39). 
21 The Court of Justice has thus held that successful integration may constitute an 
overriding reason in the public interest in relation to Decision No 1/80 (see the 
judgment in Genc, paragraph 56). 
22 However, the Court of Justice has not had the opportunity to assess whether more 
onerous temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent residence permit, that is to 
say, conditions relating to the length of a Turkish worker’s prior residence and 
employment in the Member State concerned, can be regarded as suitable to 
achieve the legitimate objective pursued. 
23 On the one hand, it follows from paragraph 32 of the judgment in Lassal, in 
conjunction with paragraph 37 thereof, that the right of permanent residence is at 
one and the same time a privilege which may be made conditional on, and thus 
used as a reward for, effective integration and a means of ensuring successful 
integration. Similarly, the Court of Justice has recognised both aspects of the right 
of permanent residence in paragraphs 24 and 25 of its judgment in Onuekwere. It 
could thus be concluded that since the granting of a right of permanent residence 
itself is classified as a suitable means to ensure the successful integration of a 
worker, a temporal restriction on the possibility of obtaining a permanent 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-375/23 
 
10  
residence must be considered to run counter to the objective of ensuring 
successful integration. 
24 On the other hand, a requirement to have been resident in a host State for a certain 
length of time is generally recognised as a factor that affects a person’s degree of 
integration in the country of residence and thus the degree of protection the person 
concerned should have against losing his or her right of residence and against 
being expelled (see, inter alia, Articles 16 and 28 of the Residence Directive, 
Article 6 of Decision No 1/80, and the European Court of Human Rights’ case-
law on protection against expulsion under Article 8 of the European Convention 
on Human Rights in, inter alia, the Maslov v. Austria judgment). 
25 The Supreme Court therefore asks the Court of Justice to determine whether 
making more onerous the temporal conditions for obtaining a permanent residence 
permit, such as the one at issue in the case, can be considered as suitable to 
promote the successful integration of third-country nationals. 
26 The above case-law provides sufficient interpretative guidance for the Supreme 
Court itself to make a concrete assessment of whether the temporal conditions for 
obtaining a permanent residence permit in Denmark, that is to say, the residence 
and employment requirements, go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective 
(see, recently, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-279/21, X, 
paragraphs 39 to 46).