Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:660
Date: 2021-09-02
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

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:  
11 August 2020 
Referring court:  
Østre Landsret (Eastern High Court, Denmark) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
3 July 2020 
Applicant: 
B 
Defendant:  
Udlændingenævnet (Immigration Appeals Board) 
  
Subject matter of the action in the main proceedings 
This case concerns the rejection of an application for family reunification of a 
Turkish national, B, with his father, F, also a Turkish national, who was granted a 
residence permit in Denmark on 13 October 2003 and has held a permanent 
residence permit in Denmark since 2 December 2013. 
Subject matter and legal basis for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the 
Association Council of 19 September 1980, as that clause has been interpreted in 
particular in the judgments of the Court of Justice of 12 April 2016, Genc, 
C-561/14, EU:C:2016:247, and of 10 July 2019, A, C-89/18, EU:C:2019:580. 
Article 267 TFEU. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-379/20 
 
2  
Question referred 
Does Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 
1980 on the development of the Association, which is linked to the Agreement 
establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and 
Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on 
the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the 
other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by 
Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, preclude the introduction 
and application of a new national measure under which family reunification 
between an economically-active Turkish national who is lawfully resident in the 
Member State in question and that person’s child who is 15 years of age is subject 
to the condition that very specific grounds, including the consideration of family 
unity and the consideration of the best interests of the child, support such 
reunification? 
Relevant EU legislation 
Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic 
Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic 
of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the 
Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of 
the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (‘the 
Association Agreement’); Articles 6 and 13. 
Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Association Agreement, 
concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972; Article 41(1) and (2). 
Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the 
development of the Association pursuant to the Association Agreement (‘Decision 
No 1/80’); Article 13. 
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family 
reunification (‘the Family Reunification Directive’) (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12); 
recitals 3, 4 and 12; Article 4(1)(b) to (d), (2)(a), and (5) and (6). 
Parliament v Council, C-540/03, EU:C:2006:429; paragraphs 61-66, 68-71, 73-
74. 
Dogan, C-138/13, EU:C:2014:2066; paragraphs 37-39. 
Noorzia, C-338/13, EU:C:2014:2092; paragraphs 15-16. 
Genc, C-561/14, EU:C:2016:247; paragraphs 55-56, 60-67. 
A, C-89/18, EU:C:2019:580; paragraphs 34-43, 45-47. 
UDLÆNDINGENÆVNET 
 
3 
Relevant national legislation 
Legal framework 
Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Udlændingeloven (Law on foreign nationals), 
Consolidated Law No 1022 of 2 October 2019, provides as follows: 
‘Upon application, a residence permit may be issued to 
... 
(2) an unmarried minor child under the age of 15 of a person permanently 
resident in Denmark or of that person’s spouse, provided that the child 
resides with the person having custody of him or her and has not started his 
or her own family through regular cohabitation, and provided that the person 
resident in Denmark 
... 
(e) holds a permanent residence permit or a residence permit with a 
possibility of permanent residence.’ 
The first sentence of Paragraph 9 c(1) of the Law on foreign nationals provides: 
‘Upon application, a residence permit may be issued to a foreign national if very 
specific grounds, including consideration of family unity and, if the foreign 
national is under the age of 18 years, consideration of the best interests of the 
child, support that.’ 
The travaux préparatoires for the relevant legislative provisions 
Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals was amended and replaced with 
the current wording in 2004, whereby the age limit for family reunification with 
children was lowered from 18 years to 15 years. 
Part 3.1 of the general comments on the legislative proposal contains more 
detailed reasons for lowering the age limit. The purpose of such an age limit for 
the purposes of family reunification where children are involved is to counter both 
so-called ‘re-education trips’ (so that they can be raised in and influenced by the 
values and standards of the country of origin) and cases where parents deliberately 
choose to let the child remain in the country of origin until the child is almost an 
adult which, in the legislature’s view, is detrimental to the prospects of 
integration. Very specific grounds may, however, allow for an exemption from 
that age limit to be granted. 
It is apparent from the specific comments on the legislative proposal concerning 
the amendment of Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals inter alia 
that, under the proposal, it is a condition for a residence permit under Paragraph 
9(1)(2) that the child be under the age of 15 years at the time of the application 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-379/20 
 
4  
and that that requirement applies for everyone. There may nevertheless be very 
specific grounds in some exceptional cases under which permission is given for 
family reunification with a child in Denmark even though the child does not 
satisfy the requirement of being under the age of 15 years at the time of the 
application. This will be so where a refusal to allow family reunification would be 
contrary to Denmark’s international obligations, inter alia the ECHR, such as 
where a person resident in Denmark is a refugee or a person having similar 
protection status. There may also be other very specific humanitarian grounds, 
inter alia, serious illness or serious disability. Furthermore, consideration of the 
best interests of the child under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 
may mean that permission must be given for family reunification in Denmark, 
irrespective of whether the child is 15 years of age or older at the time of the 
application. 
Paragraph 9c of the Law on foreign nationals was amended by Law No 567 of 
18 June 2012. It is apparent from the travaux préparatoires for the amending 
legislation that the rationale for the amendment was to clarify when a residence 
permit could be granted to children who were 15 years of age and to clarify 
practice for the assessment of the best interests of the child in such situations. It is 
apparent from the specific comments on the legislative proposal inter alia that the 
legislative amendment provision is clarified to the effect that the consideration of 
the best interests of the child forms part of the determination of whether very 
specific grounds support granting a residence permit in a case involving a foreign 
national under the age of 18. It is further apparent that this was a clarification of 
prevailing law and that the provision would be applied as before. 
Statistical information 
The following statistical information has been submitted in the case in relation to 
Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign nationals: 
Number of permits and number of rejections in first-time cases reported by 
the Danish Immigration Service in the period 1 January 2012 – 10 October 
2018 under Paragraph 9c(1) [of the Law on foreign nationals] to minor- 
children who were 15 years of age or older at the time of the application, 
distributed among the five nationalities which were the subject of most 
decisions during that period 
Nationality 
of applicant  
Outcome 201
2 
201
3 
201
4 
201
5 
201
6 
201
7 
2018
* 
Total 
Syria Permit 6 19 125 412 173 90 45 870 
 Rejection 1 3 5 24 27 38 28 126 
Syria total  7 22 130 436 200 128 73 996 
Somalia Permit  7 17 12 13 12 7 68 
 Rejection 3 13 22 18 26 15 10 107 
Somalia 
total 
 3 20 39 30 39 27 17 175 
UDLÆNDINGENÆVNET 
 
5 
Stateless* Permit 1  14 61 27 17 10 130 
 Rejection  1 2 3 5 10 7 28 
Stateless* 
total 
 1 1 16 64 32 27 17 158 
Eritrea Permit 1 1 1 3 17 26 15 64 
 Rejection    1 3 22 11 37 
Eritrea 
Total 
 1 1 1 4 20 48 26 101 
Turkey Permit  5 29 2  1 4 41 
 Rejection 11 18 3 10 4 6 2 54 
Turkey 
total 
 11 23 32 12 4 7 6 95 
Other 
nationalitie
s 
Permit 32 60 67 46 36 44 23 308 
 Rejection 25 58 49 45 45 56 25 303 
  
Other 
nationalitie
s total 
 57 118 116 91 81 100 48 611 
Total  80 185 334 637 376 337 187 2 136 
* Period 1 January -10 October 2018. 
** Incl. Stateless Palestinians. 
[omissis: information concerning the basis for the data extraction] 
 
It is apparent from Statistics Denmark’s (Danmarks Statistik) so-called ‘foreign 
national database’ that the portion of 20-24 year-old immigrants to Denmark 
having completed Danish secondary education or higher education as at 2018 was 
56% for that group of persons who were aged 0-15 at the time of immigration, and 
10% for that group of persons who were at least 16 years of age at the time of 
immigration. The portion of 25-29 year-old immigrants having completed Danish 
secondary education or higher education as at 2018 was 65% for that group of 
persons who were aged 0-15 at the time of immigration, and 19% for that group of 
persons who were at least 16 years of age at the time of immigration. 
Brief summary of the facts and the procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 31 January 2012, B, who was born on 5 August 1994 in Turkey, submitted an 
application to the Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen) for family 
reunification in Denmark with his father, F, who was born in Turkey on 
20 September 1972 and has held a residence permit in Denmark since 13 October 
2003, including a permanent residence permit since 2 December 2013. 
2 B was born in Haymana, Turkey and, on the basis of information from his father, 
the Danish Immigration Service has established that, at the time of the application, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-379/20 
 
6  
he was living with his paternal grandfather and mother in Haymana, where he also 
had two siblings. He completed eight years of primary school in Turkey. There is 
disagreement in the main proceedings as to whether B lived with his mother, who 
had remarried, in Haymana, but it is possible that they lived in the same city. F 
came to Denmark for the first time on 1 December 2000. On 25 June 2010 he was 
issued a visa for Denmark, valid until 25 September 2010. On 28 June 2010 he 
entered Denmark and left again on 11 August 2010. F was born in Ankara, 
Turkey, and lived together with B in the period 1994-2003. 
3 On 6 November 2012, the Danish Immigration Service rejected B’s application 
for family reunification pursuant to Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign 
nationals. The reasons given for the rejection were that no very specific grounds, 
including consideration of family unity and the best interests of the child to 
support granting B a residence permit under that provision, had been given. At the 
time of the application, B was around 17 ½ years old and was accordingly not 
entitled to family reunification: see, to that effect, Paragraph 9(1)(2). 
4 On 5 January 2017, an appeal was lodged against that rejection decision with the 
Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (Ministry of Immigration and Integration) 
who, on 30 January 2017, referred the appeal to the Danish Immigration Service, 
asking it to determine whether B was entitled to residence on the basis of the 
Association Agreement. By decision of 5 July 2017, the Danish Immigration 
Service informed B that it did not find that there were grounds to reopen the case 
in the light of the EU Court of Justice’s judgment in Dogan. 
5 B brought an appeal against the Danish Immigration Service’s decision before the 
Immigration Appeals Board, which, on 15 January 2018, upheld the Danish 
Immigration Service’s decision not to reopen the case, since the Board found that 
the judgment in Dogan did not confer on family members of economically-active 
Turkish nationals resident in Denmark a greater right to family reunification than 
as provided for under the rules of the Law on foreign nationals, as the individual 
provisions of those rules already provided that considerations of Denmark’s 
international obligations – including rulings of the EU Court of Justice – are to 
form part of the assessment and that the requirements may be waived if there are 
very specific grounds, so that under the law account is taken of the specific 
circumstances in the individual case, and that the Service’s decision had been 
taken on the basis of a weighing-up and assessment of whether there actually were 
such very specific grounds, which was not the case. 
6 On 5 January 2017, B brought proceedings before Københavns Byret (District 
Court of Copenhagen, Denmark), claiming that the Danish Immigration Service 
should recognise that B is entitled to residence in Denmark under the rules of EU 
law. The case was referred to the Østre Landsret (Eastern High Court, Denmark) 
due to a procedural provision in national law, under which that court gives a 
ruling at first instance. For the Østre Landsret (Eastern High Court, Denmark), the 
case concerns solely the question whether lowering the age limit from 18 years to 
15 years of age in Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals for persons 
UDLÆNDINGENÆVNET 
 
7 
applying for a residence permit in Denmark on the basis of parents residing in 
Denmark, which took place in 2004, is applicable in B’s case, including when that 
provision is read in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 9c(1) of the 
Law. Neither the Danish Immigration Service nor the Immigration Appeals Board 
have ruled specifically on that issue in the abovementioned decisions. 
Principal arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The parties to the case agree that B’s father and therefore B may rely on the 
standstill clause set out in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 and that, under the 
standstill clause, Denmark is under an obligation not to introduce new restrictions 
on Turkish nationals’ exercise of economic activity as workers in Denmark that 
are more stringent than those applicable at the time of entry into force of the 
standstill clause on 1 December 1980, unless the introduction of such new 
restrictions is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest. 
8 The parties further agree that the age limit of 15 years laid down in Paragraph 
9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals is a new restriction that is covered by the 
standstill clause set out in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 and is therefore 
unlawful in so far as it is applicable in the determination of whether a permit is to 
be granted for the purposes of family reunification between Turkish workers in 
Denmark and their minor children, unless the rule is justified by an overriding 
reason in the public interest and is proportionate. 
9 B has acknowledged that the consideration relied on by the Immigration Appeals 
Board of ensuring successful integration constitutes an overriding reason in the 
public interest that may justify the introduction of new conditions for family 
reunification notwithstanding the standstill clause in Article 13 of the Association 
Council’s Decision No 1/80. 
10 The principal question in the case is thus whether the introduction of the age limit 
of 15 years in Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals is justified by an 
overriding reason in the public interest, including when that provision is read in 
conjunction with Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign nationals. 
11 B has argued that the age requirement of 15 years laid down in Paragraph 9(1)(2) 
of the Law on foreign nationals is incompatible with the principle of 
proportionality, including in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty, and 
thus cannot be held to be justified on the basis of the consideration of ensuring 
successful integration. A minor child’s successful integration in Denmark cannot 
be ensured by a complete ban on the child’s coming to Denmark once he or she 
has reached a certain age, irrespective of the fact that a child’s age is relevant to 
integration and that minor children find it easier to become integrated and learn 
Danish than children who are almost adults. 
12 A prohibition that entails that minor children of 15 years of age and older are 
considered unsuitable for integration in Denmark, solely on the ground that they 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-379/20 
 
8  
have had most of their upbringing and schooling in their country of origin, is not 
compatible with the judgments of the EU Court of Justice in Genc and A, since 
such a rule relates to the child’s connection to the country of origin and rules out 
ex ante the possibility that the child may achieve successful integration in 
Denmark. Such an age requirement is accordingly not suitable for safeguarding 
the consideration of ensuring successful integration, simply because it rules out 
any possibility of a specific assessment being made as to whether there is a basis 
on which the child may be able to achieve successful integration in Denmark 
going forward. 
13 An overall wish to ensure that children are reunited with their families at a young 
age, so that they receive an education and acquire language skills at school, thus 
making it easier for them to become integrated, may not justify a Turkish worker’s 
right to be reunited with his minor child under family reunification being 
restricted by a rule that deprives the worker of the right to bring his child to 
Denmark solely because the child has reached the age of 15. This interpretation 
finds support in the Family Reunification Directive. 
14 It thus follows from the Family Reunification Directive – read in conjunction with 
the case-law of the EU Court of Justice – that family reunification is a necessary 
means of making family life possible and helping to facilitate third-country 
nationals’ integration in the Member States. Moreover, the Directive lays down in 
an exhaustive manner the restrictions on the exercise of the right to family 
reunification which the Member States are permitted to introduce. 
15 It can be deduced further therefrom that overriding reasons in the public interest, 
including the consideration of ensuring successful integration, may justify a 
Member State – as a condition for granting third-country nationals permission for 
family reunification with their minor-age children – laying down requirements to 
the effect that the child’s father or mother in Denmark, that is to say, the sponsor 
in the Member State in question: (1) has resided in the Member State for a period 
which must not however exceed two years; 2) has an appropriate dwelling; (3) has 
fixed, regular income that is sufficient for him or her to provide for themselves 
and their family; and (4) accepts an obligation to comply with integration-related 
measures determined by the Member State, though the Member States are at all 
times under an obligation to take due account of the minor child’s best interests. 
16 In addition, the Family Reunification Directive contains two standstill clauses, 
which provide that a Member State may maintain legislation imposing 
requirements for an integration assessment of children over the age of 12 or 
requirements for the submission of an application before the child reaches the age 
of 15, provided such legislation was in force in the Member State in question at 
the time of transposition of the Directive: see Article 4(1) and (6), read in 
conjunction with paragraphs 85 and 88 of the judgment in Parliament v Council. 
Those exceptions to the Family Reunification Directive’s general rule that minor 
children are to be entitled to family reunification with their parents were included 
to reflect a wish by some Member States to ensure that children are reunited with 
UDLÆNDINGENÆVNET 
 
9 
their families at a young age, so that they obtain the necessary education and 
language skills at school. 
17 In the determination of the scope of the consideration of ensuring successful 
integration, the decisive factor is that the Family Reunification Directive 
introduced only a standstill clause which gives the Member States the possibility 
of maintaining legislation that imposes requirements for the submission of 
applications before the child reaches the age of 15, but does not include an age 
limit for minor children among the conditions for family reunification which the 
Member States are generally entitled to introduce after the entry into force of the 
Directive as well. The right to family reunification for minor children, as 
established by the Family Reunification Directive, may not be restricted 
subsequently by reference to a wish to have children reunited with their families at 
a young age so that they will find it easier to become integrated. In other words, 
such a wish may not be categorised as an overriding reason in the public interest. 
Similarly, nor can a wish to have children reunited with their families at a young 
age so that they will find it easier to become integrated justify a restriction on the 
right to family reunification which, as regards Denmark, is implicitly created by 
the standstill clause set out in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. 
18 The age requirement of 15 years is also contrary to the proportionality principle, 
irrespective of whether it is modified by Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign 
nationals since, in the assessment under Paragraph 9c(1), importance is to be 
attached to criteria aimed at determining whether the child has such a connection 
to their country of origin, including caregivers in the country of origin, that it 
would not be contrary to the consideration of the best interests of the child to 
reject the application for a residence permit in Denmark. Thus, no specific 
assessment is made of whether the minor-age child can be integrated in Denmark, 
even though the child has reached the age of 15. 
19 Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign nationals is in itself completely compatible 
with the Association Agreement, since the provision merely provides that 
Denmark is obliged to observe fundamental rights. When Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the 
Law on foreign nationals and Paragraph 9c(1) thereof are viewed in context, it 
means that the right to family reunification for minor children who have reached 
the age of 15 is made conditional on an overall discretionary assessment, which is 
to be undertaken on the basis of those criteria which traditionally have formed part 
of the determination of whether consideration of family unity or consideration of 
the best interests of the child suggests that a residence permit in Denmark should 
be granted. Those criteria are not relevant for, and it cannot in any way be argued 
that they provide a yardstick for determining whether there are prospects of the 
child’s achieving successful integration in Denmark. The introduction of an age 
limit which is modified by criteria which – when examined in relation to the 
consideration of ensuring successful integration – are meaningless, diffuse and/or 
imprecise, is thus also contrary to the principle of legal certainty: see paragraph 41 
of the judgment in A. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-379/20 
 
10  
20 The Immigration Appeals Board has submitted that Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the 
Law on foreign nationals cannot be read in isolation and that the requirement of 
15 years of age is thus not absolute. It follows from the travaux préparatoires that 
the provision is to be applied together with Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign 
nationals. This means that in cases where an applicant does not meet the age 
requirement in Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals, Paragraph 9c(1) 
of the Law on foreign nationals will be applicable. The application of that general 
balancing provision entails that the authorities must undertake a weighing-up 
exercise and determination of whether there are very specific grounds that support 
permission for family reunification nevertheless being granted to a child over the 
age of 15 years. 
21 The restriction entailed by the combination of Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on 
foreign nationals (the requirement of 15 years of age) and Paragraph 9c(1) of the 
Law on foreign nationals is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest 
and is proportionate, with the result that the requirement is not contrary to the 
standstill clause set out in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80. 
22 Firstly, it is admittedly evident that, on the basis of the judgments in Dogan, Genc 
and A, it must be assumed that the requirement of 15 years of age is a restriction 
within the meaning of Decision No 1/80. The requirement of 15 years of age is, 
however, justified by an overriding reason in the public interest – namely, to 
ensure successful integration – which has been recognised in the judgments in 
Dogan and Genc as an overriding reason in the public interest. 
23 Secondly, the requirement of 15 years of age is suitable for safeguarding the 
consideration of the child’s successful integration. That the requirement of 15 
years of age was lowered from 18 to 15 in 2004 must be viewed in the light of the 
conclusion in a 2001 report on foreign nationals’ integration in Danish society, in 
which it is stated that the integration of immigrants from third countries generally 
was ‘negative’ because immigrants from third countries faced particularly weighty 
challenges in gaining a foothold in the education system and labour market, and in 
acquiring sufficient knowledge of Danish. This and other ministerial reports, 
together with statistics from Statistics Denmark, confirm that the child’s age at the 
time of ‘immigration’ has a decisive influence on whether the child subsequently 
completes education in Denmark, which increases the chances of entering the 
labour market and is a parameter for the child’s prospects of achieving successful 
integration in Denmark. 
24 The requirement of 15 years of age also has a preventive effect in terms of 
deterring resident foreign nationals from deliberately letting their children remain 
in the country of origin – either together with one of their biological parents or 
with other family members – until the child is almost an adult, even though the 
child could have obtained a residence permit in Denmark at an earlier stage. 
25 That the requirement is, in principle, suitable for safeguarding the consideration of 
the child’s successful integration also finds support in EU law: see Article 4(1) 
UDLÆNDINGENÆVNET 
 
11 
and (6) of the Family Reunification Directive and the case-law of the EU Court of 
Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: see, inter alia, the judgment of 
27 June 2006 of the Court of Justice in Parliament v Council, C-540/03 
(EU:C:2006:429), and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 
1 December 2005 in Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. Netherlands 
(CE:ECHR:2005:1201JUD006066500). 
26 Thirdly, the requirement of 15 years of age, read in conjunction with Paragraph 
9 c(1), does not go beyond what is necessary to safeguard the aforementioned 
consideration of the child’s successful integration. That requirement is not 
absolute, since there is precisely the possibility of granting a residence permit 
under Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law if very specific grounds, including 
considerations of family unity and the best interests of the child, support that. 
27 Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals, when that provision is read in 
conjunction with Paragraph 9c(1) thereof, does not entail a ‘requirement that the 
child must not have too strong a connection to their country of origin if a 
residence permit in Denmark is sought’, as B has argued. 
28 Lastly, Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on foreign nationals, read in conjunction 
with Paragraph 9c(1) thereof, does not contain such diffuse and imprecise criteria 
that, on that ground alone, they are disproportionate and contrary to an EU 
principle of legal certainty. 
Brief summary of the reasons for the referral 
29 In the judgment in Genc (see also the judgment in Dogan), the Court of Justice 
held that the standstill clauses on the free movement of workers in Article 13 of 
Decision No 1/80 and on freedom of establishment in Article 41(1) of the 
Additional Protocol are to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from 
introducing new restrictions on access to family reunification with children or a 
spouse from Turkey. 
30 The Court of Justice has further held that, in addition to the reasons set out in 
Article 14 of Decision No 1/80, new restrictions may be justified for overriding 
reasons in the public interest, including the consideration of successful integration. 
However, the new requirement(s) must be suitable for achieving that objective and 
must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In Genc, the Court of 
Justice considered that a rule such as the two-year rule which at that time was 
provided for in the Law on foreign nationals in relation to family reunification 
with children was unsuitable for achieving the integration objective pursued. The 
Court did not go into further detail, however, as to which criteria should serve to 
determine whether requirements with the stated objective of achieving successful 
integration are suitable for achieving that objective and do not go beyond what is 
necessary in order to attain it. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-379/20 
 
12  
31 Lastly, in A, the Court of Justice held that Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 must be 
interpreted as meaning that a national measure which makes family reunification 
between a Turkish worker lawfully resident in the Member State concerned and 
his spouse conditional upon their attachment to that Member State being greater 
than their overall attachment to a third country, constitutes a ‘new restriction’, 
within the meaning of that provision and that such a restriction is not justified. 
32 It must be assumed as a starting point that the consideration of successful 
integration in Denmark will be favoured if a child comes to Denmark at as young 
an age as possible and thus experiences as much as possible of their upbringing in 
Denmark, including schooling and education, and that an age limit can help to 
further that purpose. 
33 The age limit of 15 years introduced by Denmark with Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the 
Law on foreign nationals is not absolute since, under the first sentence of 
Paragraph 9 c(1) of the Law, a residence permit may be granted to a child under 
the age of 18 if [very] specific grounds, including consideration of family unity 
and consideration of the best interests of the child, support that. 
34 In that connection, the travaux préparatoires for Paragraph 9(1)(2) of the Law on 
foreign nationals on the application of Paragraph 9c(1) are silent on the point of 
successful integration, although it is stated that Paragraph 9c(1) may be applied 
where Denmark’s international obligations – including in particular Article 8 of 
the European Convention on Human Rights – make it necessary to allow family 
reunification. 
35 It is thus not clear whether Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 
on the development of the Association precludes a rule such as Paragraph 9(1)(2) 
of the Danish Law on foreign nationals, read in conjunction with the first sentence 
of Paragraph 9c(1) of the Law on foreign nationals, under which family 
reunification between an economically-active Turkish national lawfully resident in 
the Member State in question and that person’s child who has reached the age of 
15 years is subject to the condition that very specific grounds, including 
consideration of family unity and consideration of the best interests of the child, 
support such reunification. 
36 In the light of the foregoing, the Østre Landsret (Eastern High Court, Denmark) 
finds it necessary to refer the question set out above to the EU Court of Justice for 
a preliminary ruling.