Case C-230/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The representative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, maritime shipping, migrant worker, residence permit

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in
the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The representative of the
national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

the occupation concerned (in this case, typical of mari-
time shipping)?

(Case C-230/03)

(2003/C 200/16)

Justice of

Reference has been made to the Court of
the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
(Federal Administrative Court) of 18 March 2003,
richt
received at
for a
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003,
preliminary ruling in the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie
und Hansestadt Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The represen-
tative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
on the following questions:

1. Are the third indent of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of
Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Associa-
tion Council set up by the Agreement establishing an
Association between the European Economic Community
and Turkey (‘Decision No 1/80’)
to be interpreted as
meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally
employed by various employers in maritime shipping
forming part of the legitimate labour force of a Member
State for more than 15 years since 1977 without a work
permit being required and who has satisfied the require-
ments of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/
80 during that
time is entitled to a residence permit
where — in addition to various breaks for reasons of
illness and involuntary unemployment duly certified by
the relevant authority — his employment
in maritime
shipping has undergone interruptions of between one
and seventy days between individual employment relation-
ships on 17 occasions (totalling approximately 13 months)
and, by his own admission, the Turkish worker has spent
the longer breaks with his family in Turkey without any
involuntary unemployment then being certified? Does the
answer depend on whether such breaks are typical of the
occupation concerned (in this case, typical of maritime
shipping)?

2.

to a residence permit under

the third
Is entitlement
indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 conditional
on the Turkish worker already satisfying the requirements
of the second indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80?
the answer depend on whether a change of
Does
three years is typical of
employer before the expiry of

Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana
della Valnerina against the judgment of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case
T-340/00 Communità Montana della Valnerina v Commis-
sion

(Case C-240/03 P)

(2003/C 200/17)

An appeal against the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-340/00
Communità Montana della Valnerina (supported by Italian
Republic) against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana della
Valnerina, represented by Paolo De Caterini, Emilio Cappelli
and Andrea Bandini, lawyers.

Justice of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— confirm, in any event, the ‘deletion’ of the position of the
‘Route des Sentiers’, as held by the Court of First Instance
in the contested judgment;

— set aside the remainder of the judgment at first instance
and give final
judgment on the dispute, annulling the
whole of Commission decision No 2388 of 18 August
2000;

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated as follows:

— failure to make a finding in respect of one of the pleas in

law;

— breach of the principle of proportionality;

— infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/

88 and of Commission Decision No 3182/93;

— breach of the rights of the defence.