Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:652
Date: 2022-09-08
Language of the case: Danish
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 April 2021 – X v Udlændingenævnet (Case C-279/21) Language of the case: Danish Referring court Østre Landsret Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: X Defendant: Udlændingenævnet Questions referred Does the standstill clause in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 1 preclude the introduction and application of a national rule which, as a condition for the reunification of spouses, requires – unless there are particularly compelling reasons in a specific case – that a language test in the host Member State’s official language be successfully taken by the spouse/cohabitant who, as a Turkish worker in the EU Member State concerned, is covered by the Association Agreement and by Decision No 1/80, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the Turkish worker has acquired the right of permanent residence in the EU Member State concerned under the rules previously in force, which did not require that a test in the language of the Member State concerned be successfully taken as a precondition for the acquisition of that right? Does the specific prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 cover a national rule which, as a condition for the reunification of spouses, requires – unless there are particularly compelling reasons in a specific case – that a language test in the host Member State’s official language be successfully taken by the spouse/cohabitant who, as a Turkish worker in the EU Member State concerned, is covered by the Association Agreement and by Decision No 1/80, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the Turkish worker has acquired the right of permanent residence in the EU Member State concerned under the rules previously in force, which did not require that a test in the language of the Member State concerned be successfully taken as a precondition for the acquisition of that right? If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, does the general prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 9 of the Association Agreement then preclude a national rule, such as that mentioned, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the Turkish worker has acquired the right of permanent residence in the EU Member State concerned under the rules previously in force, which did not require that a language test in the official language of the host Member State be successfully taken as a precondition for the acquisition of that right, when such a requirement is not imposed on nationals of the Nordic Member State concerned (in this case, Denmark) and of the other Nordic countries, or on others who are nationals of an EU country (and is thus not imposed on EU/EEA nationals)? If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, can the general prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 9 of the Association Agreement be relied on directly before national courts? ____________ 1 Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the EEC‑Turkey Association.